quote
follow
Russell, on how we're f*ed human existence is an absurdity and a tragedy:
Dostoevsky, lamenting consciousness:
Dostoevsky, on how we're afraid of suicide, people who like to ask 'Why don't you just kill yourself should especially read it'
Dostoevsky, on the horrors of awaiting an imminent death:
Now, I'd like to post a quote from this short story here, but I wouldn't want to spoil it for you. Discuss in the comments. So don't read the comments before the story :)
More posts from this category: Quite a few quotes from 'The Slave Soul of Russia'Labor, consumerism, wage slavery etc
Irina |
26-08-2015
I think it's safe to say those days are gone now? Yeah, yeah. I've got other excuses now, don't hold your breath Although I would make a video if not for some factors, it'd be fun, after such long while. Straight off the bat I'll tell you that I'm not a fan of allegorical novels and stories. .. I always get the feeling when reading stories, such as the one about to be discussed, that the author is more interested in showing off their literary skills than they are about the actual core of their subject. Same here. But I think lots of other people appreciate what they're trying to show off and wouldn't have read what they had to say if they've gotten straight to the point. I myself have always preferred non-fiction. But I do like a good thought experiment or a vivid example. This particular story conveys the same point as Dostoyevsky did here. Wow did I have an accent back in that video you linked!))) |
Kirk
|
25-08-2015
I completely agree with the Brick, here.
Since people are superfluous, and do nothing really more than dig holes then fill them up again, no amount of suffering is justified to perpetuate existence, especially since it isn't a voluntary situation where someone raises their hand and says, "I'll do it, you guys go party." It is, instead, a crap shoot, a gamble of some else's life on the hopes it will improve yours. And for a caring and compassionate and thoughtful being, that can never be justified. And, of course, we all know that everyone suffers, everyone dies, so the posited one person suffering and everyone else living completely elated hands over so very much for free in the argument, and yet it still is as powerful that way than in reality. The very interesting thing to me is that I arrived at this conclusion when I was four without the internet, fables, stories, schooling, AN club, atheists, philosophy books, college classes, etc. Just raw love and logic. I applaud anyone that sees the truth and acts on it, regardless of how they arrive at it, but for me it rings soundly because when I find others who understand this rather simple concept, conceivable by the youngest of people, it validates my own understanding, a psychological visibility that has no real equal. Ignorance and fear cause so much suffering, I offer up my glass to everyone willing to open their eyes to the compassionate truth of AN! Sometimes I contemplate a convention of ANers somewhere in the world, as prone we are to avoid most of humankind in our daily lives, that might really start more stone rolling to take control of our DNA, to shut down this ridiculous party, to do what is in our power to eliminate unnecessary suffering throughout the world. And enjoy our lives the more so because of it. Clearly, as some like to argue, we can't necessarily choose for the animals nor prevent their suffering, or perhaps we should, and we can't stop the evolution, if it does indeed happen across the universe, of other suffering sentients. But truly, isn't self-extinction through non-breeding the ultimate step in development, perhaps achievable by all sentients along their evolutionary path? |
Kirk
|
25-08-2015
To celebrate the start of another school year, this news piece…
http://www.theonion.com/article/6-year-old-stares-down-bottomless-abyss-of-formal--2510 |
Dick O'Brick
|
25-08-2015
Kirk, if you figured all of this out by the age of four then I simultaneously applaud you and feel sorry for you. I was (thankfully) naive until my late teens/early twenties. It took years of personal suffering and eye opening before I even started to consider 'what it was all about' and even then I strongly resisted antinatalist conclusions for some considerable time. It is after all hardwired into us by nature to go forth and multiply. Plus, we're conditioned by our parents and all other adults from the moment we're little more than coalesced cum crumbs into believing we've been blessed with our existence and should forever be grateful for it. There's not a religious belief on the planet more deeply ingrained than this and virtually no-one is immune from holding it. At the end of the day we're all scared little children, afraid of the dark. We want to be comforted and told everything is happy and rosy. I understand the desire, because I hold it too. Nobody wants to be told that the darkness is real and that flesh eating monsters live in it. Nobody wants to contemplate that their parents and everyone else's were, at best, blinkered idiots, or at worst, selfish fucks. I see why religion fills a hole for the unwashed masses when it comes to pacifying potential questioning minds about pain, suffering and injustice. The creaking and clanking machinery which keeps this world turning is dependent on the pollyanna myth being held in perpetuity.
You said: quote:
Sometimes I contemplate a convention of ANers somewhere in the world, as prone we are to avoid most of humankind in our daily lives, that might really start more stone rolling to take control of our DNA, to shut down this ridiculous party, to do what is in our power to eliminate unnecessary suffering throughout the world. And enjoy our lives the more so because of it. Excuse the innocence of my question, but... how? Other than being personally responsible people, i.e. not procreating, adopting vegetarian/vegan diets and doing our best to 'harm none' (which by dint of our existing is an impossible feat to achieve, either intentionally or inadvertently), how would you propose going about such an enterprise? Irina here has her blog and tragically inactive YouTube channel - for which she should feel eternal shame. There are a handful of others too who openly trumpet the cause, but I sincerely doubt they affect anyone who aren't already convinced of AN going in. The only truly prolific person on the scene is Inmendham and due to his abrasive personality (not to mention downright hostility!) towards his interlocutors, I don't think any layperson encountering him for the first time would come away with the idea that this is a person who cares about the suffering of his fellow man. lol So no, call me a die hard sceptic if you wish, I do not see much hope for AN to catch on. Even if a celebrity were to publicly announce their adherence to antinatalism I don't think it would make any difference either. It might be marginally more effective than some Joe Schmoe on YouTube making a video, but all I really think it would do is cause the celeb in question to be ridiculed, ala John Travolta and Tom Cruise. Yeah, I know that there's a world of difference between antinatalism on the one hand and scientology on the other, but we're talking about the media and public dissemination here. If Angelina Jolie announced tomorrow that she was not planning on having her 71st kid after all because she was now an avowed antinatalist, how many of her fans would read beyond the guaranteed headlines that would be sensationally generated, such as: "Jolie wants you to die!", "She once wore blood in a vial around her neck and now she wants YOUR blood!", or how about, "Voight's daughter loses mind. Advocates extinction of the human race!", with the sub-heading, "Brad Pitt presses for full custody of the children while pleading to have his sick wife institutionalised." - You know that's how the press would spin it. In light of these thoughts I actually think it could be more detrimental than advantageous for AN to be broadcast outright and immediately to an unprepared audience. While I don't think human beings will ever be mature and selfless enough to bring about their own end voluntarily (I'm convinced it will be due to war or natural disaster), I think we few who embrace AN should continue on as we are doing and - hippy sounding as it may be - influence others by our very being, i.e. be kind and nice and gentle on the one hand, but irresistible fortresses of strength and moral fortitude should the need arise. Personally speaking (and it probably applies to the two of you even more so than me), I have no problems attracting people into my orbit. I very rarely feel the need to seek out other people for the sake of keeping me company, but day to day living necessitates the interaction with others. I don't live in a cave in the Himalayas, so going to the supermarket and the post office are things that do happen and there's no glamour in being antisocial or antagonistic. Rarely in these situations do opportunities for conversations go beyond the basic pleasantries. If anyone does turn the conversation to more important topics then I have no fear or reservation about speaking my mind. It's only happened a very small number of times with me and I'll admit that I get given 'the look' - i.e. as if I'm fucking nuts - but regardless of how these people may feel about me when they go their separate way, they've pretty much all had to concede my points. The only times the force of the AN argument has failed to shut people up is if they've been old and religious. Thankfully here in the UK there are very few who are anymore. I'm writing too much gibberish and getting away from Irina's original post, so I'll stop here until either you, she, or someone else replies. |
Kirk
|
25-08-2015
Let's see, what comes to mind…
Ah, I am not sure why it dawned on me when I was so young. I had been thinking about the absurdity of watching my father go off to work early in the morning and my mother cooking and cleaning all day while my brother and I (third was on the way) spent our time expected to learn things and be helpful so we could wear a watch, be a man, and eventually go to heaven. I was dosed with very fundamental nonsense from my mother from day 1, while my dad was a more relaxed catholic. In a big battle for my soul, my father gave in and though I was baptized into the catholic church as a baby, I attended a very restrictive and basic christian church until I was 17, no choice really, if I was to live at home. My point is that even with that dosing, with the southern attitude towards everything, I managed to hold on to my understanding and puzzle over religious nonsense until it broke down completely. At the university I was fortunate to be able to spend a little time with Madalyn O'Hair, the head of the American Atheists and her granddaughter, as they were friends with a housemate and sometimes ate dinner with us. She was caustic, but I was able to play devil's advocate with her to see her arguments for atheism. How to spread a meme? Realistically, as an educator, the effort needs to be on young people, in the culture. The US finally now has accepted homosexuals at a surface level. They can marry, etc. and young people today don't automatically beat them up in school, for instance, if they wear an ear ring, etc. And with AN, you have to catch them early or it is too late! But the forces of ignorance are many. Schools, church, parents, business, even the government, they all have a stake in a growing economy and more people. How to reach young people is the key, IMO, to enabling AN in the world. Educating young girls is a start, because with options beyond breeding, they can begin to have power and value in their society and personally, and perhaps choose to limit their family size. Others better than me that know how to advertise an idea and inculcate a culture, otherwise I would probably already be implementing! But I do think waiting for a giant asteroid is too slow and may never happen, and if people get off this planet, what then? |
Irina |
26-08-2015
Kirk, I am also pessimistic about AN's future. I can totally see generally educated, non-religious people adopting it - after some time and effort. But Europe, for example, is already dying out, it doesn't reproduce at the rae sufficient to repopulate itself. But Africa, India, highly religious countries - they're not ready and I don't see them being remotely ready to talk population reduction. I mean, some are still mutilating female genitals without anesthesia, you gonna talk to them about not causing suffering? They'll serve you for dinner and thank their gods. This Earth is going to be inherited by religious fanatics having 6-15 children. We are the people slowly leaving the Omelas, so to say. |
Kirk
|
26-08-2015
I am surprised at all this pessimism from this group!
But, seriously, every small idea takes time to become self-evident. I have seen changes in my life that at the time most people would have said was impossible. Space flight, eye surgery, men on the moon, the fall of the Soviet Union and the wall, global communication, belly buttons on television, xtreme bikinis, interracial kisses in public, a woman US president, oops, not that one, and video phones and jet packs, well, video phones, at least. And yes, about 5 or 6 billion more people... Take Christianity, for instance. Whatever the real truth, maybe some philosopher with some more fundamental ideas about how to treat your neighbor was a little spark, but look at the nonsense today done in the name of Jesus! Sure, he might have been nailed on a Roman cross for trying to switch things up, but no different really than others with views such as the earth isn't flat, or it revolves around the sun, or maybe it took a few weeks instead of just one to build out the universe. There are even people now in Texas that choose an old-fashioned solid steel double-barreled derringer with 410 shotshells as a personal carry gun over a small semi-auto plastic Glock! That probably wouldn't have been true 50 years ago! Yes, religion is a problem. I think religious thinking is the key to the issue, eliminating it, that is. But I also see that the key is young girls. They grow up to be moms and teach their sons. If they begin to see through the controlling aspect of male-dominated religious structures they can educate their sons to be less ignorant and maybe the balance can shift. When it happens, I predict it will happen over a very short time period, say 20 years, and then maybe 200 years to implement a complete shut down. Look to fashion for the speed in which changes can happen. With global info now available in remote African villages, less people are truly isolated and ignorant, and they can self-educate about so much. I am surprised at how much US culture is known around the globe now, that definitely was *not* true a few decades ago. And the same is true for Americans knowing more about what lies across the sea. Even music was hard to find, but now if someone has an interest in post-punk bands of the 80s, they can find info almost immediately! Do I have it figured out? No. Can it happen? Yes. Do we have an obligation to those yet here to put our minds to the task in some shape or form? Maybe. Do you wish someone had before you were born...? |
Irina |
26-08-2015
Kirk, how about this example: not even all philantropic antinatalists are vegan. Myself fucking included, regrettably. Addictions beat the best education and brain's well-evolved defense mechanism help block out the realization of the suffering caused. That's why gastronomical pleasures outweigh animal suffering. Yeah, there've been changes, some progress, but let's face it: for antinatalism to ever succeed, everybody, everybody on this planet has to adopt it. Otherwise, even a small group of people can keep repopulating. But it wouldn't be small. First you'd have to convince the whole Iraq and Iran and Indonesia that Allah doesn't want them to multiply any more. I don't think you stand much of a chance at that. Gays might be marrying in US but they still can get executed in Iran. How many centuries, do you estimate, it would take for religion to 'wear off' there? When it happens, I predict it will happen over a very short time period, say 20 years, and then maybe 200 years to implement a complete shut down. Haha I'd be happy if you were right about this. But let's again look at the facts, for example, the same veganism. I'm quoting this interesting resource, I hope the figures are accurate: It is frightening to think how much animal suffering increased since Animal Liberation was first published. The global pigs meat production increased almost 3 times, egg production 4 times and chickens meat production by more than 5 times. |
Dick O'Brick
|
26-08-2015
Rina, this is one of the things which really disturbs me. Elitist and borderline racist as I know it sounds, people from third world countries, Muslims and society's dregs all breed like rabbits. Unless someone comes along who can hypnotise the masses into 'seeing the light', I hold no hope whatsoever that education will work in time to stem the tide. Although he didn't elucidate all of his reasons, I remember Hitchens saying something to the effect that he thought atheism would lose the battle in its fight against theism. I'm sure that the sheer weight of numbers in the opposition camp was a major factor in his holding such a viewpoint.
Apathy and group thinking, delusional indoctrination and the selfish pursuit of personal pleasure, biological drives and fear of loneliness in old age - these are a smattering of the many obstacles to overcome if you want to get our message accepted. I know, Kirk, that you can come back at me with 'slavery', 'women's liberation movement', or a number of other causes which seemed insurmountable at the time they were initially being proposed and say, "see?" You've done this already and used homosexuality as your example. I agree that I could be wrong about AN being accepted wholesale and there is no more worthy a cause to pursue. BUT... if I may be so bold as to point it out, antinatalism is a different beast. It is the beast to end all beasts. ............................................................................ Damn, I was in the middle of typing with the intention of replying to Irina's last post, then I decided to refresh the webpage and all of a sudden Kirky boy's written another mile long comment! How do you do this at such speed? I'm a broken legged sloth by comparison! Thankfully you've continued on the same theme that I was tackling, so all is well. quote:
But, seriously, every small idea takes time to become self-evident. I have seen changes in my life that at the time most people would have said was impossible. Space flight, eye surgery, men on the moon, the fall of the Soviet Union and the wall, global communication, belly buttons on television, xtreme bikinis, interracial kisses in public, a woman US president, oops, not that one, and video phones and jet packs, well, video phones, at least. And yes, about 5 or 6 billion more people... As I was saying, I concede all of your points, but still think antinatalism belongs in its own unique category, quite apart from anything else you've listed or can conceivably list. Let us throw some ice cold water over ourselves and take stock of what it is we are trying to convince our fellow beings into voluntarily adopting: we are asking them to do their part in ENDING THE HUMAN RACE. Extinction, nothingness, finality, eradication, curtains, last call, obliteration, zippo, adios amigos, eternal rest. Sorry, maybe I am too narrow minded, but I just don't see this ever happening. This is the final frontier, (captain) Kirk, and I think when faced with the proposition of making it a reality, the darkest fears from the depths of collective unconscious will come welling up and scream in defiance, "NO!!!!!!!" Whether you or I am right is immaterial, for neither of us will be around to personally find out. All I can say - and this will probably turn the course of the conversation down a different philosophical path altogether - is that I think time would be better spent on finding a way to sterilise the population through the airways or water supply. Yep, I've gone and said it and I know I've now opened myself up to the inevitable outraged backlash - if not by either of you then someone out there will be offended. Come and get some! |
Irina |
26-08-2015
Let us throw some ice cold water over ourselves and take stock of what it is we are trying to convince our fellow beings into voluntarily adopting: we are asking them to do their part in ENDING THE HUMAN RACE. Extinction, nothingness, finality, eradication, curtains, last call, obliteration, zippo, adios amigos, eternal rest. Sorry, maybe I am too narrow minded, but I just don't see this ever happening. This is the final frontier, (captain) Kirk, and I think when faced with the proposition of making it a reality, the darkest fears from the depths of collective unconscious will come welling up and scream in defiance, "NO!!!!!!!" Hahaha. You've got to get published somewhere ))) |
Bernardo Lima
|
26-08-2015
That first quote is awesome.
Have you gotten around to reading Sarah Perry's book? It's a must for us antinatalists |
Irina |
26-08-2015
No, but I have it and it's on the list. Been reading Dostoevsky's 'Notes from the Underground' meanwhile. Pretty good, even funny in the beginning. "I believe that the best definition of man is the ungrateful biped." Thanks for registering :) |
Kirk
|
26-08-2015
I agree that AN is probably the hardest idea to propagate. Indeed, I have found myself stuck on that exact problem for many years now, actually percolating since my pre-teens.
I agree with all that has been said. Most people are driven by selfish and irrational desires, basics, pleasure over pain, etc. Vegetarianism is a good example, as children are trained from very early on to become accustomed to eating dead animal flesh, something that I think will fade over the next 100 years for either ethical or practical reasons. What most people don't have to do is actual look the animal in the eye and kill it and dress it. *That* will make most sensible people stop and think. I remember the last time I had to do that, and was standing in a pool of blood in front of an upside-down cow with dogs lapping up the liquid at my heels. Gruesome, right? You don't think that has an impact on a child? But what do most people do? They contract out their killing so they don't have to be bothered with the reality of what suffering they cause just to maintain their ability to scroll through Facebook and look at pictures of cats. Is that somehow morally superior, or really *inferior*? And yet these same people will go to great lengths to "save" a dumped dog from the pound, spending thousands of dollars and hours healing it and looking for a home. What incredible hypocrisy and ignorance. What needs to be addressed? Ego, self-importance, and more. But a phenomenon that I have seen played out in human psychology is very interesting, and that is the bandwagon effect. If some respected person or group starts wearing high-waisted pants, a lot of people will be quick to adopt that style. What is fashion but being the first to conform? I think this is how it must happen with AN but perhaps initially not for the right reasons. That is, when it is cool to be AN, people will do it. When it serves selfish needs, such as increasing status or income, people with do it. When they get tax breaks, or awards, or recognition, etc. they will do it. Quickly no one dares speak against it, a complete flip flop! So more specifically, as income rises, as a woman's level of education rises, as children become financial burdens, childbearing is reduced. It then becomes a stigma to have children, and those with children are glared at, despised, ignored, belittled, taxed, ridiculed, and excluded from housing, etc. This has happened very quickly with other past socially acceptable behaviours, as you mention, slavery, etc. So to summarize, I think from different directions, being social, governmental, practical, financial, and grassroots individual decisions combined with top-down pressure from various organizations, maybe PETP (people for the ethical treatment of people, maybe?) I think it can happen. And I think that maybe the little that we can do, is what we can do, no more can be asked of us but to do what we can, don't you think? And Irina's accent! I have always wondered about accents, Texas has a few, and in my travels I have heard many, in English, that is. Being a second language learner of Spanish, all I can hear when it is spoken with an accent is pretty ugly, IMO. But most accents in English sound great to me! Is that common, or is it just me? German, Spanish, Norwegian, Russian, all sound interesting. But I wonder, does a native English speaker using Russian just sound uneducated, or interesting? I know Texas natives speaking Spanish are painful for me to listen to, but I just don't know if this is just me or not. And it isn't just pronunciation, of course, but grammar as well. People will carry their native grammar into a learned language giving it that twist that I find endearing. Irina, your English is very good, not perfect, but beautifully executed with accent and occasional grammar quirks. Fantastic! I wish my Spanish was as proficient as your English. When I first watched one of Irina's videos, my mind jumped to a cartoon of my youth, Rocky and Bullwinkle, "moose and squirrel". It was my first exposure to "Russians", ha! Maybe you are familiar with the stereotypes, but I can't help but imagine Natasha when I watch one your videos, Irina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMvcyTKhqls And this woman with her takes on English accents in English, though maybe not always spot on, does do some great accents. Her Texas one, though quick and subtle, is very accurate for certain people from a certain part of the state. :57 for Russian and 1:31 for Texan accent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UgpfSp2t6k And as Captain Kirk, are you familiar with this episode from the 60s, when our population was probably about half of what it is now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdsbuJfMpr0 --- > Edited 26-08-2015 08:59:40 --- > Edited 26-08-2015 09:01:49 |
Straight off the bat I'll tell you that I'm not a fan of allegorical novels and stories. Animal Farm is considered by academia as a profoundly written book about the dangers of communism and a metaphor for the Russian Revolution, but - call me an unsophisticated degenerate with eye poppingly large trouser bulge if you must - it did nothing much for me. I prefer serious subjects to be treated so and not to be veiled in mystery and ambiguity. That's not to say that metaphors, similes, analogies, etc, don't have their place. I use them all the time and think they're indispensible for trying to express complex thoughts as simply as possible. What I don't like is when they are used SOLELY - it is a disservice to important matters. Detractors to my straightforward view of tackling critical issues will probably say the innately nebulous quality to such stories is what gives them their value and fans the flames of discussion and ongoing dissection. Valid as this rationale may be, I still think it's ultimately disingenuous thinking, for if a topic is of burning importance to a person then it should be presented in its clearest and most succinct form possible. I always get the feeling when reading stories, such as the one about to be discussed, that the author is more interested in showing off their literary skills than they are about the actual core of their subject. Wow, I really can be a narrow minded, moaning old bastard at times, can't I? Don't answer that!
Alright, seeing as it's YOU who asked, I read 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' and neanderthal and uncultured as I may be when it comes to literary appreciation, I'm still not totally stupid. The crux of the story can be summed up with the perennial question: at what price happiness? In order for this wonderful world to work there has to be a sacrificial lamb and is it permissible? I'm sure there will be many classically trained philosophers and ethicists out there who could tie me in intellectual knots with their efforts to justify the mistreatment of the poor basement dwelling child, but we have to look no further than upon your visage Rina in order to get to what I believe to be the ultimate argument against such evil permissiveness: https://youtu.be/djMBMuYLMpU?t=1020
The words you speak in a space of 2 minutes between the 17:00 and 19:00 mark are amongst the most beautiful and caring that I've ever heard uttered. They cut like a knife through the verbiose jungle of pronatalist bullshit and penetrate straight to the heart of what it means to be a loving, intelligent and vital member of the human race. I'll tell you that the only reason anyone could ever give me for wanting to remain in Omelas is 'Irina Uriupina'.