quote
follow
“Choose to be optimistic, it feels better.” ― Dalai Lama XIV
“Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable.” ― Voltaire
My video on the negative outcomes of positive attitude and on poor people having kids.
Just posting it here in case anybody will want to comment and get a reply as I rarely interact on Youtube.
More posts from this category: Talking about female sexuality (video)Open Letter to Teenager stating nobody owes them that much goes viral
Irina |
05-01-2014
Have you been away being happy? I've been both. And also I've noticed most AN are broken idealists... Well, not only ANs, pessimists in general, cynics... I'd say, disillusionment. Before I was thinking animals in the wild lead relatively happy lives and die quickly not painfully. It was an illusion of a harmony. The reality is dreadful and there is no way to justify or explain away the horrors that take place every moment. "This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel". - i think this about describes the situation. |
|
04-01-2014
Regarding the kid torturing the kitty... it doesn't necessarily mean that the kid was abused thought in some cases that might be true. There are a lot of psychopaths who have never been abused by their parents and who turned out to be, well...psychopaths. In fact, torturing small animals in childhood is a very common behavior in psychopaths.
Having said that, if I saw a kid torturing a cat, I would probably beat the shit out of the kid. I'm a very empathic person ( I think) and I don't believe in free will but still, it's like you say, no matter how intellectual one may be, there is a visceral reaction that simply cannot be avoided. And animal suffering happens to be the one thing that I really can't stand. I would be so consumed by rage that no amount of rationalization would be able to stop me from hurting the kid. On top of that I would want to make sure that the kid would never hurt another animal again... |
Irina |
05-01-2014
Yeah, not necessarily. Just wanted to make a point about a vicious circle of misery. Parents are messed up because of their own parents, they mess up their own kids, and so it continues... And I also don't believe in free will any more, but even if somebody was born psychopath it doesn't make the case for them worse in my opinion. One has no control over what genes they inherit just as what environment they'll be raised in. It'd be like blaming a predator for beng born a predator. I can totally relate. I feel the same in many situations. The urge for revenge just appeas even though you should know better. But in other, less severe cases the fact that I don't believe in free will prevents me from becoming too angry for a long time. Upset, disheartened at the whole situation - that can settle in for a while. |
|
05-01-2014
"but even if somebody was born psychopath it doesn't make the case for them worse in my opinion. One has no control over what genes they inherit just as what environment they'll be raised in. It'd be like blaming a predator for beng born a predator."
Oh, absolutely. Couldn't agree more. That's why I believe in morality but not in "moral responsibility". Unfortunately, despite the fact that free will is an illusion, we still need to imprison people. Why ? Because everyone else will be better off. What we don't need is "retributive justice". That is plain nonsense. And we need laws and public policy that levels the playing field. |
Irina |
05-01-2014
Yep. Can't avoid punishment as it is a deterrant. Well, retributive justice probably keeps people (victims and their loved ones) from taking the law into their own hands. So again we have to choose between bad and worse. Such is this world. |
|
05-01-2014
To clarify, I'm obviously a fan and agree with most of your arguments and have that same empathic nature also.
Still I can see a growing community of like-minded sufferers if you will and once you get to that desolate place of diminishing hope, isn't it unproductive to wallow in misery? If animals is the center of your caring, that would seem to me to be the center of your future purpose & direction. |
Irina |
05-01-2014
Being either content or miseable isn't productive or unproductive, they're just states a person can be in. In either of those states one can be both productive or unproductive. So I'm not sure what you mean by wallowing in misery. There is such a thing as philosophy and it's about describing the reality and the possible courses of actions, the ethics of certain behavor etc. Usually before some social change takes place an idea of a new direction must be formed and defended and 'win hearts and minds'. I'm not too optimistic though about AN idea but it can prevent some people from making a mistake and that will already be good enough. Maybe you mean some real gloomy and joyless people, well, don't have to like them, let them find somebody on their wavelength. But whether they want to change is their own personal choice, we shouldn't be trying to shut anybody up just like we're not shaming stupid shallow people who post celebrity gossip and nail polish tips. They're not very productive either. |
|
05-01-2014
Well-said. Also, many people dislike the 19th century romantic philosopher Schopenhauer due to his abundant pessimism, but I think pessimism is very useful to keep us down-to-earth and not high above the clouds. Happy new year beautiful Irina !!
|
Irina |
07-01-2014
Thanks! Happy new year to you too, James! |
Joe
|
05-01-2014
I think you'll enjoy this video about one woman's experience with outlandish optimism in America today. It's quite an interesting take on the absurdity of "the power of positive thinking" as it relates to working culture as well as those suffering from illness.
http://youtu.be/KvwyhSeLZT8 Thanks for sharing your thoughts, rinaweb. It's always a pleasure to see your vids. |
Irina |
05-01-2014
Thank you, Joe, I've seen her presentation before. Very eloquent and true. Thank you for watching my videos) |
Brian W.
|
12-01-2014
Brilliant video, Irina! It seems here in the U.S. that the poor are out breeding everyone else. Our government is pro-natalism and pays people for breeding. Insanity.
|
Irina |
16-01-2014
Thanks, Brian. The poor have always been breading, in older times - to raise themselves another pair of hands to help around the house, work on their gardens and finally care for them when they're old. They'd have 5-6, 2-4 of them would die before reproducing. It was considered normal. |
|
25-01-2014
I'm impressed. That doesn't happen too often I must say I've been debating with believers and atheists for a long time (on MySpace, then Facebook), I first thought atheists were smarter, then I discovered that at least the Dawkins-fans are usually not acting very smart at all (especially many male atheists of that kind sound like psychopaths when you start debating). But when I accidentally bumped into some of your video's on YouTube lately it was a nice surprise. I first thought you were just another 'antinatalist', but I soon got a different impression. I think you are against corruption of life by means of false ideas about what life really is. In one of your video's (not the one on this page) I saw your agreement with empathy "not doing to others what you don't want them to do to you", so I understand you are far from being negative. You're trying to make sense. You're a good thinker, your thoughts are rational and also balanced. About the new age and happiness and positivity stuff... I tend to leave things in the open. If people are positive, and it isn't all too "fluffy" (if you know what I mean), I may empathize with it. Human beings happen to create meaning, it's what they do, and doing so is not necessarily a delusion I think. To believe that all things are increasing suffering wouldn't be correct either - many people are happy at many times, that's an argument for the existence of happiness (whatever its definition may be). When mama's have children, I am reminded that whenever things go wrong in this world (wars kill the love, let's say), well, mom's tend to love their baby's, so there is a mechanism in nature that has the power to bring human beings back to love always, don't you think? There is at least a positive argument here. However, I would agree with you that we also need to accept the way things go in nature and with the world. We do of course "resist nature" in many ways (after all, you wouldn't wear those nice earrings and those clothes if there wouldn't be those industrialization and manufacturing processes which somehow "cultivate nature" in a number of ways). We all somehow subscribe to this trend, our "culture". But there is a difference between "working with nature" and "working against it". We shouldn't work against nature. In this sense, I can follow you perfectly - it is good to learn to accept for a great deal the way reality works. But I will still resist at many points. For instance, I tend (in 'my own philosophy' so to speak) to accept that I will suffer, but not to accept that I can afford to cause suffering to others. In other words I hate self-complaint and I also highly favorite forgiveness when others do wrong. What do you think, would that be "too much positivity"? I don't see it that way. Somehow, both of these (revoking self-complaint and trying not to diminish complaints of others because of me) tend to increase my happiness. It is not a bad thing to do your best to make society a better place as far as that is possible. I try to work "with society" - but this means mostly working with (empathizing with) the weakes ones among us - not with the greedy ones. In this I may be more intuitive than rational, but i'm not so sure if this isn't the most rational way to proceed. Anyway, I've learned a few things from the few video's I saw so far. I guess I'll try to follow up on you, more or less;) |
Irina |
25-01-2014
I think you are against corruption of life by means of false ideas about what life really is I'm just talking/writing my thoughts. If people are positive, and it isn't all too "fluffy" (if you know what I mean), I may empathize with it. Human beings happen to create meaning, it's what they do, and doing so is not necessarily a delusion I think. For most people, I suppose, it's a necessary thing to go thru life without being depressed. I see that as a coping mechanism and thus I even hesitate to ruin that for people. But as I said in the video, unfortunately, this seemingly harmless thing becomes a justification for perpetuating life, and then - more people are in the same shithole needing the same defense mechanisms... To believe that all things are increasing suffering wouldn't be correct either - many people are happy at many times, that's an argument for the existence of happiness (whatever its definition may be). I don't think calculating or weighing suffering or happiness in the world does any good. Even if the world consisted of 99% happy people but 1% would've been miserable I still wouldn't see it ethical to create that 1% of suffering just so that 99% could enjoy themselves. When mama's have children, I am reminded that whenever things go wrong in this world (wars kill the love, let's say), well, mom's tend to love their baby's, so there is a mechanism in nature that has the power to bring human beings back to love always, don't you think? There is at least a positive argument here. No, I don't. So mothers tend to love children. Yet the history of humany is a bloodshed on bloodshed, even though everybody has mothers. Look at any conflict in the world right now and tell me how mothers' love makes any difference. But there is a difference between "working with nature" and "working against it". We shouldn't work against nature. Thats a fallacy. Nature isn't an authority. It is not a bad thing to do your best to make society a better place as far as that is possible I agree. We are here and that's a fact. As long as we are we should try and cause as least suffering to each other - and I'd include other sentient beings of this planet - as possible. Also nothing wrong with trying to make the best of the time you've got and to try and be happy. As long as that doesn't extend to creating a new human being. |
|
25-01-2014
Let me clarify the first phrase you quoted from me ("I think you are against corruption of life by means of false ideas about what life really is"). I may have expressed myself badly here. I meant to say you seem to oppose corruption of life, the way people corrupt it with false ideas about what life really is.
Overall, you don't seem to agree much. I didn't expect you to agree, but I'm still convinced that underneath the position you defend there is something else going on, like resistance against false, overstated (and religious) beliefs about life. Which I can understand and respect. The 'anti life' position is more rhetorical I believe. It is difficult to see how the AN position itself would be solid. After all, nature does have authority, of course it has. This whole planet somehow 'knows' how to handle hostility against its geological, biological, ecological principles. The whole system developed ways to protect against disasters. This is the authority of laws of physics and other laws. And in much the same manner as the planet may destroy life that does not respect its ecosystem, it also developed procreation. It is impossible to teach animals not to procreate - and if we would prevent it, we are working against nature. Yet, we can control what we want to do with our lives of course. In this, you are correct - but the argument cannot be generalized. Anti-natalists would always eliminate themselves from the planet, while 'natalists' will go on. Nature will always win in the end. Also your point against my 'mama love argument' was disputable. Mama's tend to love their kids. Wars and most violence and abuse in the world is a man's business. There is no doubt that 95 percent of that sort of suffering is caused by males and their tendency to dominate, to strife, to conquer, to win, to use. The rule of nature remains true in all of this: nature brings human beings back to love. It is the reality, or at least part of the reality. Suffering is also a part of reality, but this is either because of (a) human violence/abuse or (b) the uncontrollable ways of nature. The first aspect is something we can work on. The second aspect we have not under control - neither through excessive procreation nor through efilism or AN. |
Irina |
26-01-2014
I'm still convinced that underneath the position you defend there is something else going on,like resistance against false, overstated (and religious) beliefs about life. Which I can understand and respect. If you see just an atheist in me you're mistaken. I do not believe in gods but I do not make a big distinction between belief in gods and belief in 'Nature' or 'Cosmos' or humanity's big mission on this planet etc. What's the practical difference between a religious breeder and those who have children because they believe in the absolute value of human progress or whatsoever. All of them force their worldview on a new person who never subscribed to that. All justify the creation of life and death (it's one package after all) by their own beliefs. The 'anti life' position is more rhetorical I believe. This whole planet somehow 'knows' how to handle hostility against its geological, biological, ecological principles. And in much the same manner as the planet may destroy life that does not respect its ecosystem I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. There are various processes taking place on the planet. Are you implying planet has some sort of interests and goals? Are you also saying it only destroys life that theatens its ecosystem? Are you aware more than 90% of species that ever existed are extinct? Do you see some pattern in why all those are gone? Were they all threatening the planet? It is impossible to teach animals not to procreate Well that's obvious to a 5-year-old isn't it? - and if we would prevent it, we are working against nature. Is Nature - God who has given us commandments to follow? Again, you're implying there is some plan, some intent in nature, that it doesn't simply exists but it has some purpose, goals and values. You're simply repeating the same appeal to nature fallacy. Besides, if humans are a part of nature, everything we do is happening in nature and we can't possibly go against it because we are it and how do you know that what humans are doing isn't a part of nature's big 'plan' if we assume the existence of such. Yet, we can control what we want to do with our lives of course. In this, you are correct - but the argument cannot be generalized. We have demonstrated the capacity to advantage of contraception. Instead of having 6 kids with only half of them pulling through to maturity we now 'go against nature' in saving those lives that would otherwise be lost to disease. We are even transplanting organs today which is unthinkably far from natural ways of relying simply on one's immune system. Yes, we can genaralize. People can and do choose to have less kids now that they have control and knwledge. Anti-natalists would always eliminate themselves from the planet, while 'natalists' will go on. Nature will always win in the end. Well then no problem, just wait? :D Seriously though, your claim is based on the assumption that anti-natalism is some genetical trait. Do you have any evidence for that? Of course not. My parents weren't and aren't anti-natalists. Some people who've had kids became antinataliss later in life. The rule of nature remains true in all of this: nature brings human beings back to love. It is the reality, or at least part of the reality. This is just some kind of poetry. You're claiming that nature - though mothers love - puts an end to wars? And that this is some kind of achievement that all the horrors end at some point? How does that differ from claiming GOD puts end to war because people are praying to him? Same unproven poetic assumption. You can easily flip that and emphasize that people keep going back to wars and conflicts. I don't see anything great about the fact that there are wars and lots f people die horribly in them and they never see any going back to peace because for them it's the end, they get no justice and no compensation for their torment.
Humans are part of nature so it's all one category: suffering is in the fabric of this reality, it is pre-programmed in it and no life is spared certain amunt of it. That's why by starting life one imposes suffering together with it. The amount of which is unknown. It may be a relatively good life or it may be agonizing horrors. It's a black box of "nobody knows what the hell is in it". Except for death. Death is in it for sure. Look, it's simple: you don't have a kid - there is nobody to suffer and nobody to experience deprivation. Don't tell me it's not under our control. Just as people control not to have 6 kids but only 2 they can control to have none if they so choose. It's only a matter of whether we Want to control it. And that's a different question. A lot of people wount. But some will. And they will both prevent a needless suffering and possibly protect themselves from anguish of seeing their children hurt in this brutal world. |
And also I've noticed most AN are broken idealists...
Can you make a video on how massive disappointment usually leads to pessimism and AN ?