"You're analogous with your faeces" | Antinatalism Debate With SuperHumanDance

00:00 Intro
00:40 debate begins
00:41 flowchart argument
04:50 "do you think risk happens?"
07:30 "are you ok with you child being every human ever?"
51:47 Outro
52:04 Bonus meme
Superhumandance: / superhumandance
Twitch: / perspectivephilosophy
Discord: / discord
Donations:
streamlabs.com/perspectivephi...
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
COURSE PRESALE🎓 (Save 33% for a limited time only) bit.ly/2VM6q97
TIP JAR 💰 paypal.me/PerspectivePhilosoph?
Book recommendations📚 www.amazon.co.uk/shop/perspec...

[@ucchi9829]

I don’t appreciate these yes or no questions. They seem to have a tendency to bootstrap the interlocutor into a view that might not actually reflect theirs.

[@phr3ui559]

Ok

[@devgo180]

Debate David Benatar. He is probably the most famous antinatalist philosopher.

[@bookseycooksey4174]

And all previous interviews indicate Benatar would gladly accept a debate with him. But we know PP doesn’t have the cajones to engage with an actual professional philosopher.

[@bookseycooksey4174]

Also, PP seems to prefer the easy sweetness of the low hanging fruit.

[@karelyngaetan7016]

@@bookseycooksey4174 cojones*

[@99sunaimi]

PP should debate Cosmicskeptic

[@ONeill01]

I like these little edits at the start of these videos - nice touch!

[@Academic_G]

Indeed👌

[@Avenger222]

It’s very clear this dude relies on the "weakly analogous" excuse to dismiss *ANY* hypothetical that he doesn't like. It's clear he's either intentionally doing this in bad faith or he's subconsciously relying on this excuse due to some me sort of defensive mechanism. Then there's the framing. If he was being truly honest and good faith, he'd change the wording on his third question to make it clear that he's talking about the risk and not the act itself. which then leads back to the first point and how pointing this out will bring you to his "weakly analogous" dialogue tree. [Edit: added "clear"]

[@spooky6043]

This is easiest my favourite conversation of yours - I feel like you communicated your point so well that it was really hard for me to think of contradictions to it

[@donaldmack2307]

SHD is NOT the representative of Antinatalism. Thats all I wanted to say. Have a good day.

[@donaldmack2307]

@Dirac Delta Lol. Idk man. Noone is qualified. I do like SHD sometimes. I dont remember making this comment or why I made it 🎃

[@nicholasfilar7700]

It's pretty hilarious that SHD thinks he's slick by swapping out "you're okay with the risk" VS "you're okay with that being the outcome." It's like: "I'm okay with building a bridge even though there's a risk it could collapse and kill 100 people." "OH WHAT?! You're okay with building bridges that collapse and kill 100's of people?"

[@justanotherutuber3]

There's necessity in the bridge.no necessity in creating a child who is very likely to consume corpses of animals

[@nicholasfilar7700]

@@justanotherutuber3 neither is more necessitated. Nothing is necessitated at all if you're an existential nihilist that hates humanity and for no reason values some idealistic morality existing in a vacuum with no moral agents... like yourself.

[@nicholasfilar7700]

@Dirac Delta SAD

[@brandtgill2601]

I mean... if the chance of the bridge collapsing were 20% id say the risk is too high. 20% of the population significant depression. And 20% of men 18% of women will die of cancer in their lifetime. So I'd say the risk is quite sufficient from those 2 statistics alone. But then you ad suxual assult, murder, other mental illnesses, permanent disability from car crashes, climate change and so on... I think you get the point. That even in a first world country the risk is significant. And if you're in a 3rd world country haha oh boy life will be a blast I'm sure. So I don't see much of a difference seeing as the risk is likely over 50% that some shit will significantly diminish the quality of life for your child by the time they die. The real hope is it isn't s mental illness because that's a big ol hit yo life quality from birth till death

[@VoloBonja]

@@justanotherutuber3 there is more necessity for a child than for a bridge. Have you eaten to many corpses already?

[@vegansomething719]

Missed this stream, glad I caught up because that was a wild one. It's so funny how he got stuck on the nuance at the first question on his flow chart. How are we supposed to approach complex arguments that narrowly?

[@primitiveprimate5529]

I LOVED THE EDITS IN THE INTRO 😂😂😂

[@TwilightBornGirl]

the other person REALLY tried a got ya and failed miserably while being happy with that. geeze

[@bookseycooksey4174]

He is a complete embarrassment to the antinatalist community.

[@alexhobbs2352]

This is just Darth Dawkins 2.0, except this time the dialogue tree is an actual flowchart

[@UranoSteam]

Excuse me but what does " Are you in control of your loins " mean in the flowchart

[@ONeill01]

🌀PP The Hurricane 🌀

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

In the red corner!

[@chaseblauvelt7008]

Steve Godfrey makes a good point and I think this guy did a poor job, but for Perspective Philosophy, I think you got a bit confusing on the whole free will point. This guy's point was that, given that humanity lasts for eternity (or some arbitrarily long amount of time) it is almost certain that one of your descendants will be a horrible person. You countered this by saying that you will raise your kids to live ethical lives and to teach their kids the same. You later went on to say that a great parent can raise a serial killer because of free will. Whether there is or isn't free will, there is a small chance that a child will grow into a psychopath and if you extend that chance into all of eternity it's nearly guaranteed that someone down the line will be a monster. I don't think this argument justifies anti-natalism, but you unnecessarily struggled against it.

[@martaso643]

There are a few good arguments for anti-natalism... this debate contains none of those... :'D

[@trashee973]

This guy gives off such an argumentative and accusatory vibe it makes what could have been a nice philosophical discussion grating to listen to.

[@nojoyrecords]

Now this is the content I needed a future PhD to provide!

[@bookseycooksey4174]

Picking low hanging fruit can certainly be enjoyable, but it’s less than impressive for a future PhD.

[@georgepantzikis7988]

Next time he asks "Do you really think this example is analogous?" just take his flow-chart and change the words so that it fits your example, and tell him that since he is using that chart as his syllogism (and your example fits the chart so well that you can replace a few words and get the same logic out of it), it is not only analogous but logically identical. If you were to express it in the logical notation of analytic philosophy it would be identical. Also, this difference he defers to between 'logical analogy' and 'practical analogy' makes no sense and it's obvious he made it up on the spot in order to one-up you.

[@eoghan375]

At some point this guy read that fact about faeces and it's clearly affected him on a deep level. I hope he can get past it

[@jcg7672]

First ten minutes I feel like the word “ok” is being equivocated on. In one sense it is being used to mean accept, in the other sense it seems to be used to mean approve of.

[@KristianKumpula]

At first my morning-groggy twisted brain misread the title as "antianalism debate" and I became highly intrigued. Now I'm slightly disappointed.

[@KaosEspada]

Jesus christ its another Ask Yourself...but worse! Also, idk if lewis hired someone or taught himself, but the editing is so on point. :)

[@allisterblue5523]

I think he speaks of assymptotic risk over the generations. Realistically (unless the likelihood is steadily decreasing each generation for example), one of your descendents will be one.

[@patrickthomasius]

It depends if your genes die out at some point and the amount of reaponsibility you have over far descendanta is questionable I would say, but good point to think about. Realizing that might build motivation to create world where the chances actually are decreasing

[@graftonfury]

Why does this guy remind me of a less trolly,Darth dawkins

[@officialphreyz96]

My position in challenging the antinatalist view doesn't consider traditional morality. Antinatalism takes its stance on the ideology of 'GOOD' vs 'BAD'. Point 1 - if everything was always, eternally 'good' (with no perception of 'bad') then the distinction between the two good&bad wouldn't exist. Point 2 - equally, if everything was always, eternally 'bad' (with no perception of 'good') then the distinction between the two good&bad wouldn't exist. The point is that there is no good without the presence of bad and vice-versa. The question, however, is in the PERCENTAGE of good over the bad that someone experiences, and vice-versa. With the understanding that it is ingrained within the psychology of sentient life that the sense of good/bad experience is the ruler of our decision making through life. That being said, I think the sentient's transcendence of the psychological drive to moral good/bad perception of life challenges the antinatalist viewpoint. The antinatalist says "the bad in the world outweighs the good, therefore it's better to not come into being" I'm saying, if a mind makes that decision from a non 'good vs bad' viewpoint but from a point of acceptance, let's say, (just accepting all things as they are) then we'd be having a whole different discussion about whether or not procreation should continue. The kind of acceptance I speak of is the kind the Taoist view endorses. Taoism speaks of the principle of "The Way" - the flow of the universe, as it is, including the minds of sentient beings as part of nature itself - and the acceptance of 'The Way' is what should continue existence... not a decision of good or bad. And I personally don't think humans can go beyond existence on the grounds of good vs bad. The acceptance of both pain and pleasure as a mutually exclusive phenomenon (but not both immediate, experientially) should make sense in the minds of people.

[@jamakika]

Gold

[@bookseycooksey4174]

Actually it’s pyrite.

[@bookseycooksey4174]

It amazes me that PP would rather support natalism and the resulting carnism, than support antinatalism which is the only philosophical perspective that absolutely guarantees you won’t be creating any future carnists ever. But PP’s natalism would rather risk animal abuse and carnism than ensure they are protected. The spectacular cognitive dissonance this must require is astounding.

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

Well considering I dont support Natalism means you have mistaken me opinion. I suggest going to listen to my conversation with Seven of swords which was the most comprehensive IMO

[@bookseycooksey4174]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy But you don’t support antinatalism either, so you might as well be a natalist.

[@arrsea1265]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy if you don’t support antinatalism then you’re ok with Natalism. Thats called being a Natalist.

[@potatoprist3210]

@@bookseycooksey4174 not really he may not agree whit anti netalisam but he disrnt think that its a bad thing

[@patrickthomasius]

@@potatoprist3210 shhh, people want to think in black and white only

[@quad9363]

What an awful conversation partner.

[@lifewins8467]

Reply to @Cheezus Christ: I don't know why your comment was removed, but I thought I would still reply to you. If you believe that potential harm is so bad that nobody should be created, then I would say that potential risk of harm would give you sufficient "reason" to end everything as soon as possible, overriding your interest in existence. Alternatively, you could just realise that universal AN is an illogical and unethical ideology. No, my view is not that everybody has a life worth living. In fact, I am a firm supporter of the RTD (along with transhumanism) so that suffering can be minimised. I just don't think that the deeply good parts of life should be relegated to the sidelines. I would rather live in a "fantasy land" rather than a fortress of doom that leads to the annihilation/prevention of all good. If you could realise that people can find ethereal happiness even when they don't have a lot, you would see how absurdly unethical your position is. Hope you have a good day ahead.

[@lifewins8467]

Reply to @Cynical Broadcast: You're all hung up on a narrow perspective that conceals the reality of the world-a world that also has a lot that's good and not something that you can trivialise.

[@lifewins8467]

Reply to @Donald Mack: "Orga..s" are not the ultimate source of joy to me, sir. I agree with you on the necessity to minimise harm. However, I would also point out that many people can find their life to have indescribable value despite suffering a lot. Not existing would certainly not be "better" for them. As ideas like transhumanism and the RTD become more popular, we will hopefully see a great reduction in suffering. Hope you have a good life ahead.

[@MrThephonypope]

Is this guy in training to be the Darth Dawkins of antinatalism

[@arrsea1265]

Oh darth Dawkins is really bigoted

[@Maggiore_G]

Who argues with a flowchart? that is the most debate lord tactic i've ever seen. I don't think he was arguing in bad faith it's just that he doesn't understand what (or doens't want to understand what you're explaining) Every analogy you made was proper because it was comparing the risks... throwing in the "seriousness" of the action itself doesn't discredit the analogy at all. It was painful to watch but i really admire you're patience, i think i would have hung up on him when he started gonig "ok so you said yes, yes, no so you're contraddicting yourself" Such a childish debate tactic holy shit

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

The most logical people argue with a flowchart. It is the FIRST STEP in ORGANIZING all consequences of all choices. Only SHITHEADS pretend that unscripted free-flowing oral debates prove or disprove anything.

[@lysergidedaydream5970]

I genuinely don't understand the second question

[@NeutronMagic]

Listening to this guy was strongly analogous with carbon monoxide poisoning.

[@NoUseForAName06]

Can't help but feel that this guy is pretty bad faith. He says he's open to having his mind changed but he doesn't even acknowledge the point you are trying to make about being ok with the risk of something happening compared to being ok with that thing happening.

[@joeydrummer7929]

LMAO the end is outstanding 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 *long silence ..... “Greg?” 😂😂😂

[@TheAwesomeOne221]

destiny style yt edits Pog

[@zeebpc]

procreation creates Every risk, while things that include already being alive, the risk already exists.

[@sovereignstudies1369]

Driving a car directly creates risk, you can't have a car crash unless you utilize the vehicle. It's a 1:1 phenomena

[@zeebpc]

@@sovereignstudies1369 people need to exist in order to drive cars. everything people do is a risk. the practice of procreation creates All risks. there is nothing analogous with this.

[@sovereignstudies1369]

@@zeebpc People need to exist necessarily for the risk of driving a car to occur. But in of itself, procreation is not sufficient to create that risk, ergo you are creating risk by engaging in certain behavior beyond merely the act of procreation. It's not even an analogy it's the exact same phenomena.

[@zeebpc]

@@sovereignstudies1369 if people didnt exist cars cant be driven .this is such a shit analogy. stop replying.

[@sovereignstudies1369]

@@zeebpc Buddy, it's not an analogy, it's the exact same phenomena. Action: creation of previously non existent risk this applies in both cases.

[@bjrnvindabildtrup9337]

You say you are ok with a 100% risk of a risk but are you ok with risking a 100% risk of risking a 100% possibility of an outcome?

[@UranoSteam]

I had a stroke reading this

[@iank1234]

Human Commit Bad Therefore to Eliminate Bad We Should No More Human Nice one my dude

[@lifewins8467]

That's what I call killing someone to heal them, a "solution" that's not very real.

[@filrabat1965]

Well, if we had no more births, there would be no more bad. Sounds straight forward to you.

[@filrabat1965]

@@lifewins8467 If it's impossible to heal the badness, then nonprocreation may be the only way out.

[@lifewins8467]

@@filrabat1965 True, it could be. But I don't think it needs to be.

[@lifewins8467]

@@filrabat1965 And no more goods. It is pretty straightforward

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Everybody on all sides of all issues is so tiresome with the philosophizing. While I do NOT claim that unique rankings of multitudes of choices exist, at least mathematical quantifiable formal reductionism CAN get everybody to focus their decisions upon FALSIFIABLE TESTABLE actions, asking at EVERY point in time: WHO forces HOW MUCH upon THEMSELVES and EVERYBODY ELSE. The consequences of all actions reduce to 4 basic mutually exclusive + exhaustive effects: negatives done to you negatives by you positives done for you positives done by you and their "anti-" effects: (an abstract generalization of opportunity cost) NOT having a negative done to you you NOT doing negatives NOT having positives done for you you NOT doing positives

[@kobidavis1752]

Adding peepee the lightning rod to my bucket list. The fuck is peepee the lightning rod

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

I, Am PP THE LIGHTNING ROD

[@kobidavis1752]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy phuck just realized what PP was.

[@distermaer]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy You should change the name... 🤣

[@homelessengineer5498]

Imagine using an actual NPC dialogue tree to "debate" for a position and calling yourself a philosopher. Embarrassing.

[@jackpalmer6024]

'No analogies are valid bcus I can think fo a non-valid analogy'

[@naomi-nada]

Despite the fact that this dude is not very bright, I think he understood many of the distinctions PP was making. The problem is he's not acting in good faith so it doesn't really matter. Shame.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

If the risks matter, then so do the opportunities.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

No not necessarily. Domestic abusers could use that same excuse. What matters is objective value.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

@@FinalFantasy8911debater Love and beauty differ from abuse. Both negative and positive values can be objective.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

@@MrPeaceGuy54 Quote: *"Love and beauty differ from abuse."* Response: Red herring fallacy, you're bringing up an irrelevant point from the main subject. You said "opportunities" matter. That deductively means that ANYBODY'S sense of an opportunity is valid, whether its toward love OR abuse. You naysayers of antinatalism are fine with birthing new humans with harmful desires and who would be willing to harm to achieve them.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

@@MrPeaceGuy54 Quote: *"Both negative and positive values can be objective."* Response: Yes in theory, BUT it comes down to what reality shows. Same with the existence of god, a god can or cannot exist. So what does reality show? It shows that a god most likely doesn't exist and that no real "good" thing exists, only bads, or negatives. The negative is pain and suffering. No "goods" exists because there's nothing with an objective property that warrants NEEDING to exists or that gives better quality to the universe. Human hedonistic pleasure and desire aren't "goods" because they're either just the fixing of negatives (eating food, drinking water, etc.) or they're addictions to something intrinsically neutral (listening to music, socializing, watching sunsets, etc.). No pro-lifeists can demonstrate an actual "good" thing that exists, all goods are neutrals at best!

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

@@FinalFantasy8911debater The question of God is a separate one (free will, questions regarding consciousness, and pantheistic ideas that incorporate all aspects remain). Reality shows that the good is as real as the bad. Objectively, the universe may not be better off without suffering either (as the reduction of suffering does not enhance the well-being of nothingness). However, just as we need to remove suffering for our own good, there is also a need to create and conserve the good. The negatives arise due to an absence of a positive (like loneliness coming as a consequence of one being no longer satisfied with their environment). If are still important, then the same can be said about the positives. I believe that it would be utter folly to use words such as "addictions" to describe a love for something good. Real addictions are bad because they ruin the quality of one's life and prevent the existence of genuine good things (like meaningful relationships, knowledge, beauty, etc.). The good is intrinsically positive. I don't think that an anti-lifer can convincingly show otherwise. It isn't a red herring to have a nuanced perspective. Your point about my view on opportunities is a fallacy of composition. Firstly, it's questionable "opportunities" that entail unnecessarily harming others can benefit one in the long term. If they cannot, then it was a significant risk masquerading as an opportunity. Secondly, we have to discover better opportunities that benefit all instead of some people. People can also be born with helpful desires. Good people such as yourself are compassionate, which is what enables them to do improve the world. Progress is not an illusion. Deadly diseases like smallpox and polio have either been destroyed or have been eroded in their strength. In my country alone, millions are no longer living in extreme poverty or facing widespread discrimination. Changes will occur and the good will always matter. I hope that you will have a beautiful weekend, friend!

[@HappiestEverEmoBoy]

This dude misrepresents the whole idea of risk significantly.

[@HappiestEverEmoBoy]

@Dirac Delta im not smart enough to be an actuary. Its underwriting for me

[@bennymwelch]

Not an antinatilist, but just trying to point out something. PP makes the point that there is no statistic to prove that there is a 100% risk one of your children or descendants will become a horrible person, and PP does a good job of pointing out the flaws in the way SHD frames his argument, but looking at the bigger picture of SHD's argument and the general sentiment of it, it's hard for me to wrap my head around a reason to think he's wrong. There may be no actual study or academic research that absolutely proves that your child or one of your descendants will become a terrible person, but it's kinda common sense at least one (if not many) of your descendants will. Obviously every person comes from another person, horrible people included. There's literally no way someone from your lineage will not become a terrible person at some point. Literally look at your family history and you could probably find at least one bad person who is a chain reaction of one of your ancestors choosing to procreate. Look at your immediate family history, someone is more than likely a bad person in your closer lineage, they may not be murderers or rapists, but chances are you can at least find say, one narcissistic person in your family that causes you or other family members a considerable amount of grief for example. This is a matter of looking at the bigger picture and using practical common sense rather than trying to fuel some impractical hyper specific logic game. It seems PP's appeal to this inevitably is risk reduction through raising your children right, but taking into account that there's no way to eliminate the inevitable that someone will eventually be a bad person, it seems more like a better of looking at what he is proposing is the delay of the inevitable rather than risk reduction. The only way to stop the inevitably of it happening is to not have kids, therefore appealing to the big picture of antinatilism that the only way to completely stop suffering and bad things happening totally is from not procreating at all. Again, not an antinatilist, but just trying to sort this out. I know for a fact I probably made some logical errors there cus I'm pretty inexperienced with debate and philosophy, so if anyone can strengthen or even better, refute my argument, (because I'm actually a pro-natalist and want to be able to better justify my position but am just trying to work through the logistics) that would be greatly appreciated.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

zzeebPC Please learn to use the word FORCE. Procreation FORCES both risk (harm with probability

[@adribones]

What a bonkers debate to stumble upon. Questions2&3 combine to seemingly break the logical absolute of non contradiction, how could my progeny have potential to be a non- predator, but also have a 100% to be one?… Also if any generation has a non-zero chance of not procreating how could there be a 100% chance in the first place?

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

Antinatalism is an objectively rational philosophy, but greg doesn't do a good job of advocating for the philosophy. Life's intrinsic absurdity, pointlessness, containment of random amounts of wasted suffering and harm and injustice validate antinatalism. Anybody against antinatalism is saying that something makes up for those things or that those things are negligible, and to such people they deserve to experience ALL of those things, since they are nonchalant about them.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

Universal anti-natalism is not justifiable. The pointless nature of annihilation, the presence of numerous positive experiences (from love to beauty), and the existence of resilience make AN untenable. While the suffering that is there is not insignificant, we cannot ignore the existence of people like Helen Keller (her famous view on the "faith" of optimism would be pertinent here), the Buddhist monks who calmly sit whilst being on fire, and Nick Vujicic. People who fail to see this probably deserve great things so that they can truly appreciate that which is good. Personally, even if I suffered to an enormous extent, I don't think that I would be able to rationally accept universal AN. Emotions can certainly make act in all kinds of peculiar ways.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

@@MrPeaceGuy54 Quote: *"Universal anti-natalism is not justifiable."* Response: YOU'RE WRONG, antinatalism IS justifiable. Why? Because science shows that life is intrinsically pointless and absurd, and filled with injustice, wasted suffering, and ends in death and eradication, thus any sort of "pleasantry" experienced is forgotten. And pleasure in life does not coherently account for or make up for the pain and suffering within it.

[@MrPeaceGuy54]

@@FinalFantasy8911debater Science doesn't show that the positive aspects of life cannot be valuable for us. If one chooses to neglect that which is good, absurdity is a natural outcome. And once one doesn't exist, the lack of any experience/memory is not good or bad for them as it doesn't cause any loss or gain. The joy of being able to help others and see the beauty in the world does allow many (like Nick Vujicic) to transcend their suffering. It would be foolish to deny that we have much to do, but there is still good here, brother. In my view, in the final analysis, it is not insufficient.

[@FinalFantasy8911debater]

@@MrPeaceGuy54 Quote: *"The pointless nature of annihilation"* Response: What do you mean by annihiliation? You mean DEATH? Nature itself affirms death and causes it, why're you fine with blind physics causing such but not a human being with intelligence and a coherent argument? Your actions don't make any rational sense. Assuming you CARE about being rational, if not, then you've excused yourself from claiming what OUGHT or OUGHT NOT happen.

[@envyxsavi8033]

There's a blockage in your coherence to articulate the congruence of having a child and its likeness

[@envyxsavi8033]

You forming yourself with the metal is not analagous to the sperm that waits for the egg say it's okay & in that way that's all you really need to know

[@brainbeatsdick7483]

Who are you talking to?

[@envyxsavi8033]

@@brainbeatsdick7483 perspective

[@brainbeatsdick7483]

@@envyxsavi8033 What you said is completely interchangeable. I could say the same thing to you. You need more specificity in your assertion to make it a meaningful claim/opinion.

[@joewesterland5697]

People who pay 10% attention to the other person are the worst

[@spacedoohicky]

I think I understand the guy. If we go back in time 500 generations everyone of European descent today shares the same 1st of 500th generation grandparents. Those grandparents which are the entire population of Europe from 500 generations ago had a 100% risk of producing Hitler. Because, Hitler exists. So he's assuming due to the historical rate of criminals being produced over 500 generations that today's generation of global grandparents will have a 99.99% chance of producing a descendant that is criminal like Hitler, or whatever sort of criminal since criminals have been a constant ever since that 1st of 500th generation. Simply put today's generation are the collective grandparents of 500 generations in the future because our descendants will all be doing the sex thing together. That assures that everyone in our generation will eventually produce a criminal descendant. I'm not sure why we should care though. Even it was a 100% chance we can just say a little suffering is worth the continuation of the human species. However much we revile such crimes. There are at least some descendants who would also be good. I could be wrong on the 500 number. Maybe we'd have to go back 1000, or more generations to share the same grandparents. 500 was just a guess.

[@snaggiz]

Making yes or no questions out of extremely circumstantial, complicated ethical questions only to try to create a “contradiction” is just such a bad faith approach to a discussion, not to mention reductive. These questions don’t leave any room for other factors either, such as socioeconomic circumstances, parenting practices and access to good education and more stuff! As far as I’m aware, we don’t fully know the exact mechanisms behind why someone becomes someone like Adolf Hitler but we do know that some of the things above, if done right, reduce the likelihood of criminality. There’s never any guarantees, of course, but this is what the data indicates as far as I’m familiar with it.

[@hypercortical7772]

"100% risk of a risk" is such an annoying phrase

[@tthbro]

This must be whole new fallacy. Literally every action can be said to be risk of a risk causing anything unless you are all knowing god.

[@thekycklingwizard78]

@@tthbro or if you’re nothing and you weren’t born to begin with? See guys, antinatalism works I swear guys please

[@lifewins8467]

Now we may as well mention that there is a "100% opportunity for opportunity". It's amazing how often ANists (not all) claim that they are this machine of reason and compassion above their inferior human compatriots, yet fail to realise their own emotional biases. Still, it's fun to have these discussions.

[@2vtardis]

This reminds me of your debate/discussion with Darth Dawkins. It's honestly pretty frustrating to watch how unwilling people with this sort of flowcharty debate style are to engage in stimulating conversation. They decline a lot of attempts you make to start a more expansive discussion of specific points that are brought up. All they want to do is keep you on the rails of their flowchart that is designed to trap you. Also, SuperHumanDance seems to have a huge misunderstanding of probability. He seems to equate the chance of a specific instance of an event (a bad person being born) occurring from a set of events (people being born) to the chance that the instance occurs (a bad person being born) in one event (a singular instance of birth) taken from that set of events. The percent chance of a bad person being born on the planet would approach 100% percent eventually, even if the chance of a bad person being born per individual birth were hypothetically less than .001%. That is what he was trying to say I think. But, that does not mean that an individual instance of birth also approaches 100%. So if you were willing to accept that hypothetical .001% risk of your child being a bad person, then there is no contradiction. Maybe I was misunderstanding his arguments, but this is how I interpreted them.

[@nielss5945]

Everything approaches a 99.99% (not 100) given enough time Greg. This funny man just has a problem with time itself. And he doesn't understand that a parent is not responsible for his future, future children. If I engage in procreation, that child is my responsibility. But the child of my child is not my responsibility. I didn't create the child of my child, i only created one human, therefore the risk is very low. He essentially puts every bad thing that ever happened in Adam and Eve's boodline on Adam and Eve. In my opinion, that's nonsense.

[@LifeSucks]

So consequences don't matter to you.

[@keithdon3313]

@@LifeSucks what do you mean by that?

[@mindlander]

You didn't create your child either. You created a bunch of sperm. The sperm created a fetus with an egg, so why would you be responsible for it, right?

[@austin7761]

@@LifeSucks the consequences of myself as a moral agent are what I'm cupable for. I'm not culpable for the consequences of another moral agent making a decision, even if I was part of their creation, especially if I never even interfaced with this moral agent. To claim that I'm morally responsible for the choices of my progeny hundreds and thousands of years into the future is the biggest reach in the universe.

[@sovereignstudies1369]

That's not even how probability works in a physical sense, it's a presumptuous presupposition to state that finite states can be repeated infinitely in a physical universe. An event's occurrence doesn't approach 100% when that event can only happen in limited quantities.

[@om-boi]

7:44 Because it’s possible, that is reason enough to have a vasectomy right now. Another reason why it’s a good idea, a vasectomy is the best thing you can do for the environment. There are orphans and foster children if you want to parent someone, and they already exist. The world is overpopulated. Having a vasectomy is also the best thing you can do for your wallet. Living child-free is the best financial decision you’ll ever make.

[@WindsongPodcast]

The antinatalist side here, whatever his name is, is constantly interrupting and I’ve had enough. If you want to have good debates with people please learn to let them speak and avoid interrupting before that. It can be challenging I know. If I can overcome the habit then so cane you. Until then I’ll invest my ears elsewhere.

[@theletterh3569]

anti-natalism is the way to go if you don't want to be an evil person. it's better to not sentence somebody to living due to the fact that there's a 100% chance of suffering and also the chance that they might not like their lives (practically the same thing). i could go on about the arguments but it would probably break YT's page. anyways i would like to see a natalist try and prove this moral philosophy wrong! good luck tho.

[@sovereignstudies1369]

There's no epistemic reason to privilege pain over pleasure Ergo The asymmetry argument is false and Antinatalism is untrue.

[@patrickthomasius]

Instead of asking someone to debate I think PPs debates are worthwhile to watch and show that there are reasonable arguments and positions on both sides. So I wouldnt call you irratuonal for believing that birth is ethically problematic, but I would call you irrational if you accuse people of commiting moral crimes instead of moral uncertainties, at least when done so without realising how controversial the position is. Not saying you are doing this tho, just lots of people do this nowadays

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

AMEN, The Letter H! Subscription earned!

[@bellumthirio139]

An individual can morally justify the risk of life regret of their children, and again the certain existence of suffering can again be morally acquiesced by a parent

[@morristaylor6310]

This is so incredibly bad faith on the other guys part it’s disgusting

[@donaldmack2307]

If you *think* you are into philosophy but arent redpilled on antinatalism you just have your toes wet.

[@BakerWase]

"You have to agree with my views, otherwise you are not as well read as me" What a conceited and contrived thing to say.

[@donaldmack2307]

Bezos' Anti-Bullying Agency Superb strawman. Good job.

[@arrsea1265]

I wouldn’t use redpill as a word. Wouldn’t want a trumpie or incel buddying up with me

[@patrickthomasius]

@@arrsea1265 well antinatalism is a community with lots of incels - also he jsut threw the word strawman around when exactly what he said was that people are just not experienced when they disagree lmao

[@nixpix814]

Wow, he really doesn't understand what an analogy is.

[@thelevelbeyondhuman]

For some reason anti natalism usually teaches you more about the people who preach it and believe it than the philosophy itself

[@guy-iw2qh]

The people who debate superhumandance (PP for one) dont want the flowcharts on screen because that would bring more responsibility on them to be more accurate and write things down and they DON'T want that cause they tend to be evasive and dishonest. Superhumandance offered to do it and share his screen. PP didn't want that after he was 25 minutes late.

[@justanotherutuber3]

Who cares,superhuman is always late

[@killingwitchs]

Yes, because people want to be gish galloped for 30 minutes straight about nonsensical points.

[@mitkoogrozev]

Ah, the risk guy is doing some verbal shenanigans , when he says "there's 100% risk of a risk". Trying to sneak in behind some people's brains that the risk of some occurrence is 100%. But saying that there's 100% risk of a risk is simply an unnecessary complication that suggests he wants it to sound like something more than it is. And for some reason the guy evades the analogies by stating ''they're weakly analogous to procreations''. They're not even meant to be analogous to procreation, but they're meant to demonstrate the problem with his chart, that it literally applies to everything. Just change 'procreation' with any other word and the way he constructed it and talks about it will always, 100% of the time will lead you to the boxes that say ''you contradict yourself". Basically the whole design of the chart is constructed to be ''you either agree with me, or you contradict yourself'' about any topic.

[@colonelweird]

What was that business about "I'm not making any claims"? He literally agreed to debate the issue of anti-natalism, didn't he? If he doesn't want to make any claims about it, why debate it? To be honest it felt like he was so intellectually insecure and afraid of being owned that he constructed this flow chart as a pseudo-logic trap in order to avoid having to make any arguments. But literally nothing he said made any sense. Also I noticed how, every time you made a point, he refused to respond to it and just changed the subject. It was frustrating to listen to, but ultimately it was pretty sad.

[@moonhouse3540]

“The probability will approach 100 percent.” Dude, how many children do you think people typically have??

[@WaffleSSSSSPLUS]

the argument includes every generation after, the the idea of procreation on assumption it continues perpetually. probabilistically it approaches 100% even with freewill assuming freewill is part of the chaos of a system. you can argue that freewill is outside of predeterminism and chaos but its pretty hard to do that.

[@moonhouse3540]

@@WaffleSSSSSPLUS would you mind clarifying that first sentence for me?

[@WaffleSSSSSPLUS]

@@moonhouse3540 basically it also includes your kids having kids and so on until the heat death of the universe

[@sovereignstudies1369]

@@WaffleSSSSSPLUS It doesn't because we live in a physical universe, even the longest lived lineages are finite. It would require an infinite amount of births in perpetuity to approach 100%. Considering this and that there are various factors that impact the probability, it doesn't necessarily become more likely over time.

[@WaffleSSSSSPLUS]

@@sovereignstudies1369 its based on the assumption it is, likewise you're assuming finity of the lineage

[@AluRooftop]

the incels are evolving?

[@michaellevi1474]

This anti-natalist is a solid 85IQ.

[@racoon251]

Anti Natalism is so cringe

[@saii221]

you're so cringe

[@michaellevi1474]

It really is.