Jun 122011
 

There are many barriers to suicide.  Some of these are formidable external ones, ably elucidated and explored by writers like Sister Y.  These barriers include the comparative lack of access to swift and painless means of killing oneself and a society committed to interventions — sometimes brutally coercive interventions — to prevent suicide.  Others, I think more formidable, exist internally.  People are, in general, very very afraid of death.  We normally think that the worst legal penalty we can inflict on anyone is death.  Even very old and sick people who will soon be dead anyway undergo painful, costly treatments to stave off death.  Militaries the world over know that you need extensive indoctrination, training, and the threat of social shaming to get soldiers to go into battle where they will face death (and even then, they usually have someone in back of the line who will shoot you if you try to run away).  People hate to even think about death, and when they do, it deranges their minds.

I strongly suspect that our fear of death is something hard-wired in our minds and thus very difficult to overcome.  Organisms that were really really motivated to survive in the nasty world full of predators and parasites and starvation would b a lot better at reproducing themselves than those that weren’t.  It’s nasty that this is achieved through so much fear, but natural selection doesn’t care how miserable you or anyone else is.  It only “sees” the production of new organisms.  Evolution is not your friend.

In spite of the probable hard-wiring of this fear of death, it seems at least thinkable that some people overcome it.  David Hume might have been one such for real.  James Boswell, visiting Hume on his deathbed in 1776 reports a surprisingly cheerful and even witty philosopher who jested about how we would have to have infinite universes in which to put everyone  and where “…that the trash of every age must be preserved.”  More seriously, Hume advanced an argument found in Lucretius to the effect that “…he was no more uneasy to think he should NOT BE after this life, than that he HAD NOT BEEN before he began to exist.”  (When Boswell reported Hume’s conduct to Samuel Johnson the latter was (predictably)  immensely irritated “Sir, if he really thinks so, his perceptions are disturbed; he is mad: if he does not think so, he lies. He may tell you, he holds his finger in the flame of a candle, without feeling pain; would you believe him? When he dies, he at least gives up all he has.”   Such Christian charity!)

So maybe terror at death is not inevitable, though most of us are still probably a lot more like Johnson than Hume in our inner makeup with respect thereto.  Maybe we need a little pharmacological help.

Imagine a drug — call it epicurazine — distributed through the air or water so that all who encounter it achieve Hume’s equanimity in the face of their own deaths.  Suppose, though that this is epicurazine’s only effect — it doesn’t make them calmer or happier about anything other than the prospect of their deaths.

Then imagine further all the external barriers to suicide are dropped away.  The priests are all deported and the psychiatrists are all locked up in the madhouses that they once ran and nembutal is available in ubiquitous vending machines.

As things stand, even in a world where the means of suicide are problematic and death a terror, suicide is still rather common.  The NIMH estimates that in 2007 it was the tenth-leading common cause of death and that there are 11.3 successful suicides per 100,000 population.

In my counterfactual world, how much do you think suicide would increase?  One order of magnitude?  Two?  Three?

(And we think our lives are…good?)

 

Jun 112011
 

Instead of or in addition to advancing arguments why not

  1. Open a really neat bar or restaurant,
  2. Hang out in a really neat bar or restaurant, looking to hook up with someone,
  3. Create some yummy porn and give it away for free,
  4. Program a really neat video game.

What do these items have in common?  Well, they’re all adult activities, they’re all fun for someone, and they’re all harder to do for people with children.  They raise the opportunity cost of having children, because having children takes away from fun times out or even just playing video games (ask any parent if you really must).  The more adult fun in the world, the less people will want to have children.  From a philanthropic antinatalist perspective, this is win-win.  Existing people have fun (or at least, the sufferings of their existences are palliated) and future people are never brought into existence and thus never have to suffer at all.

I am shamelessly stealing an idea here from the psychologist Geoffrey Miller, who uses a similar concept to explain the Fermi paradox.  Why don’t we see alien civilizations out there?  Maybe because once they got sophisticated enough they managed to amuse themselves into extinction.

Most bright alien species probably go extinct gradually, allocating more time and resources to their pleasures, and less to their children.

Although Miller also notes the existence of a version of the Shaker problem.

My dangerous idea-within-an-idea is that this, too, is already happening. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, and anti-consumerism activists, already understand exactly what the Great Temptation is, and how to avoid it. They insulate themselves from our Creative-Class dream-worlds and our EverQuest economics. They wait patiently for our fitness-faking narcissism to go extinct. Those practical-minded breeders will inherit the earth, as like-minded aliens may have inherited a few other planets. When they finally achieve Contact, it will not be a meeting of novel-readers and game-players. It will be a meeting of dead-serious super-parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but the Xbox. They will toast each other not in a soft-porn Holodeck, but in a sacred nursery.

And that does look like a real problem to me.

Jun 112011
 

I’ve had a lot of unhappiness in life, to the point of having spent a large part of it wishing that I had never come to be, and all in spite of my being quite sure that my life has gone much better than many or even most other people’s.  You might ask — and would be right to ask —  why in light of this experience I don’t just become completely pessimistic about sentience — do the full Ligotti, so to speak.

The answer would have to be that not all of my experience has been all that negative.  When I reflect back on my life so far, I can point to at least  a few periods that seem to me to be consistently happy, some lasting months, and in one case one that lasted almost a year.   By my count, 22 months in all.  And when I think further about these segments of my life and in particular why they ended, their failure seems to be less a matter of happiness inevitably decaying, in the way that heavy nuclei or human bodies inevitably decay, and more a matter of circumstances changing for the worse.  And nothing in human circumstances seems to have a per se necessity.  In some counterfactual world, those circumstances need not have changed.

Some obvious caveats:

  1. All of these times happened before I was 25 years old, and I am now 44.  “…only the very young and very foolish…”  I do not expect there to be any extended period like them in the rest of my life.
  2. Related to (1):  The happiness I experienced then might have been the result of irrational optimism associated with youth.   If I could somehow have understood then what I understand now I would not have been as cheery.
  3. I might be suffering from recall bias and looking at certain parts of my past through rose-colored glasses.  That’s certainly possible, although if I do suffer from recall bias I can at least say I don’t suffer from it systematically, since I remember far more unhappy parts of my life (and more vividly, generally) than happy ones.
  4. Am I just kidding myself?  Even if I’m right about my own life, 22 months out of what, 315 or so of anything that might plausibly be called adulthood?  That’s something like seven percent (and falling).

Well, okay. It’s a weak case against pessimism.  But it’s not a non case, and in my mind it at least opens the possibility that sentient (though probably not human) existence may be salvageable…

Jun 052011
 

This particular diavlog ran some time ago over at Bloggingheads.tv, but it’s probably still worth some attention. Among other things, it involves an antinatalist — indeed a voluntary human extinctionist — being interviewed by someone sympathetic to transhumanism. That’s an unusual pairing.





Though for what it’s worth, there seem to be significant differences between the position that Nina Paley is taking here and what I take to that of philanthropic antinatalism. Paley objects to the effects (horrific, no doubt) that humankind has on other species. But it strikes me that if we worry about suffering, animal suffering should also an object of our concern: if we expand the circle of our concern outward from just humanity it would seem that even for non-human animals (sentient ones, anyway) it is also better for them never to have been. Or as Schopenhauer once put it:

If you try to imagine, as nearly as you can, what an amount of misery, pain and suffering of every kind the sun shines upon in its course, you will admit that it would be much better if, on the earth as little as on the moon, the sun were able to call forth the phenomena of life; and if, here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline state.

 Posted by at 14:52

A brief exchange…

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on A brief exchange…
Jun 052011
 

…between a friend and a friend-of-a-friend, both of whom went to the same superb engineering school.

“When I was at school,” remarked the friend-of-a-friend,”I knew lots of people who were into transhumanism, life extension, cryonics, mind-uploading and all that sort of immortality stuff.  But then the graduated, got married, had children, and basically forgot all about that.”

“Yes,” responded my friend.  “Having kids makes you wish you were dead.”

 Posted by at 11:42
Jun 042011
 

Has anyone ever done an accounting for the net effects of love in the world?

That seems like a shocking question.  How could anyone think of love as anything be positive?

But if I assay my life I find that one the whole love has been anything but positive.  Sure, there have been a few good times.  But I also look back on at least one shattering breakup and one instance of heartbreaking unrequited love, both of which hurt every day for months after they happened.  The most recent of these two events is now fourteen years in the past, and the memory of both is still painful.  They hurt enough that I’m at least partly convinced that it would have been better never to have fallen in love at all.  With anyone.  I feel this way often.  At least there are at least some other people who are honest enough to admit this as well.

If we look around the world what do we see?  We see loneliness.  And heartbreak.  And people stuck in nasty, abusive relationships they can’t break out of.  Or people who, in the words of Lady Blessington, have for a month of honey condemned themselves to lifetimes of vinegar.  Add in the violence and frightful behavior of people tormented by love and you have worldwide one nasty picture.

Has anyone ever done an honest accounting for the net effects of love in the world?

Jun 042011
 

There was once a small religious sect known as the Shakers.  Originating in the eighteenth century, they led lives remarkable for their simplicity, gender-egalitarianism, and…celibacy.  Since the dominant mode of cultural transmission for religion is from parents to children, the survival of their communities was problematic.  They survived for some time by making converts and adopting orphans, but they are now nearly extinct:  there are perhaps three Shakers left in the world.

Antinatalists face a Shaker problem.  I do not know if it is insurmountable, but it real, at least if three generalizations obtain:

  1. The extent to which people are persuadable by antinatalist considerations varies from person to person.  (Some people, for whatever reason, will think of life as some sort of precious gift.)  Some people are incipiently pronatalist, others incipiently antinatlist.
  2. The extent to which people are incipiently pro- or anti-natalist is strongly influenced by their parents in various ways.  This can happen both through genetics (people who inherit a genetic predisposition to optimism are likely at least ceteris paribus to be pro-natalist) and through transmission of values and belief systems (e.g. most religions, unlike Shakerism, are pro-natalist).
  3. Pro- or anti-natalism affects people’s propensity to procreate, with pro-natalists like to have children and anti-natalists likely to refrain from having children.

(1-3) seem highly plausible, and if they are then what happens?  Anti-natalists have no (or few) children, while pro-natalists have many.  Anti-natalists dwindle away like the Shakers, while the world fills up with people who are disinclined to listen to what anti-natalists have to say.

That’s bad for anti-natalism.  The Shaker problem might be a good reason for anti-natalists should adopt children.  Also for working much harder for anti-natalism.

Status and human unhappiness

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on Status and human unhappiness
May 312011
 

Optimists like to point to certain non-zero-sum aspects of human existence as evidence that things can get better.  They’re entirely wrong:  wealth is not zero sum.  Incremental technological change can make more wealth, and with sound institutions and public policy we can even hope to have that wealth distributed in ways that make it beneficial to lots of people (rather than just a small elite).

Unfortunately, people care an awful lot about status.  And status, pretty much by its very nature is zero-sum.  And not only is it zero-sum, but the fact that people use resources trying to get it means that the scramble for it will burn up a lot of the wealth that our incremental technological change generated for us.

May 302011
 

Here in the United States it is Memorial Day, a day set aside (in theory) to honor fallen soldiers.  In that spirit, I have reached on my shelf for a slender volume by the German anarchist and pacifist Ernst Friedrich (1894 -1967) who, in a small volume called WAR against WAR! (1924), collected some shocking images to show the real nature of the First World War.  It seems appropriate this year, just a few weeks after the last known combat veteran of that huge conflict has finally passed into the blessed calm of nonexistence, to show some of his work.

It is great fodder for pessimists.

A soldier, “a serious typhoid patient who would die ‘in any case’ was simply given nothing to eat so that he starved to death in utter misery.”

Men being hanged by the Austrian army (which hanged several thousand in the course of the war).

A non-commissioned officer wounded in 1915.  “Treatment not yet completed.”

A soldier still living, but missing a part.

I first saw these photographs when I was nineteen and they have been nightmare fuel ever since.

I present them as the sovereign antidote to fools who think that life is basically good.

 Posted by at 04:00
May 292011
 

In some of the darker days of my existence, certain well-meaning people would try to comfort me with a sentiment like the following:

You should be happy.  You have so many advantages.  You are better off than 99% of all people who have ever lived, and probably better off than 90% of all people alive today.

So perhaps nine out of ten people are worse off than I am in important respects.

This fact is supposed to make me feel…better?