Is there more pain than pleasure in the world?

noubliezjamais

Came across an article on efilism/antinatalism online. Their arguments for not having children are the intensity of pain and suffering is much greater than pleasure, can last nearly forever (chronic pain), and doesn't take effort to create.

On the opposite side pleausure is almost always less intense (and is usually the absence of pain not good itself), extremely fleeting and requires effort.

I suppose some will go on that "others have it worse and cope" but maybe if they were given a choice they wouldn't want to be here??

The little things in life like food, sex, warmth, relationships are probably only worth it if you already have a minimum base level of pain/pleasure you don't cross. Once you go below that, no amount of kisses and chocolate can make up for getting punched in the face, losing a job, getting mugged etc..

Not my arguments by the way but many in the AN community. I wonder what you think. U agree?

Bob Harris

noubliezjamais wrote: »

The little things in life like food, sex, warmth, relationships are probably only worth it if you already have a minimum base level of pain/pleasure you don't cross. Once you go below that, no amount of kisses and chocolate can make up for getting punched in the face, losing a job, getting mugged etc..

Not my arguments by the way but many in the AN community. I wonder what you think. U agree?

Are they the worst types of pain you can think of?

noubliezjamais

Bob Harris wrote: »

Are they the worst types of pain you can think of?

Well I've accidentally put caustic soda in my eyes which burned my cornea. Also been in a car accident, mugging, burglary all in Africa.

Badly Drunk Boy

Perhaps "many in the AN community" deserve to be "getting punched in the face" for dwelling on this sort of stuff, when they have it a lot better that most in the world. (Yeah, I know that's part of your "others have it worse and cope" bit).

pwurple

I enjoy my own life, despite plenty of loss and trauma. It's all an adventure. But, I think in general, not creating more consumers is a thing to be lauded. I would love ten kids, but two is where we stopped. So, if someone thinks it's because they think life sucks, well, sure, that's their prerogative, and I wouldn't want to change their mind.

noubliezjamais

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Perhaps "many in the AN community" deserve to be "getting punched in the face" for dwelling on this sort of stuff, when they have it a lot better that most in the world. (Yeah, I know that's part of your "others have it worse and cope" bit).

Well they do make a convincing argument. Having a kid guarantees pretty much suffering so why just not have one if you can avoid it? Life has no objective meaning and I would argue is quite arduous. Even if others have it much worse, does that really justify having a kid?

kowloon

There's an anti-natalism community?

ancapailldorcha

OP, you might enjoy reading Hans Rosling's short but excellent Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World - And Why Things Are Better Than You Think.

Avatar MIA

You can't have one, you can't have one, you can't have one without the ... other.


It's a balance, unless you're in physical pain or have mental issues (chemical imbalance, genetic issues, in an abusive relationship) you're going to experience a certain level of pleasure and sadness similar to most people.

I think lotto winners are going to experience a short lived euphoria, but are they any happier over the rest of their lifetime - I doubt it. They'll still lose loved ones, get bored of sun holidays...

Try not to do something you'll regret like marry the bad boy/vacuous pretty girl, hurt someone while dui. Try to better yourself (keep learning, don't stagnate), try to bring joy to your loved ones, fellow man... And I think you'll do well.

Of course we all have doubts, bringing someone into the world is a massive thing. Is it the ultimate self indulgence? I sometimes think it is. So, we do owe it to our children to make the world as good as it possibly can be for them to give them the best chance of happiness.

Ficheall

I have a lot more respect for someone who says "We shouldn't bring a child into the world because there is often, on balance, more pain than pleasure in life", than for someone who says "We need to bring more children into the world to look after us in our dotage and ensure the economy can support our pension funds".

corner of hells

noubliezjamais wrote: »

Well they do make a convincing argument. Having a kid guarantees pretty much suffering so why just not have one if you can avoid it? Life has no objective meaning and I would argue is quite arduous. Even if others have it much worse, does that really justify having a kid?

I take it you have no kids yourself.

Ficheall

corner of hells wrote: »

I take it you have no kids yourself.

Pretty sure he means eventual suffering for the kids, as opposed to for the parents having to raise the kids.

Sabrebo

If you look at most people, they spend most of their typical week being miserable so you'd have to ask would it make sense for them to kill themselves.

Avatar MIA

Sabrebo wrote: »

If you look at most people, they spend most of their typical week being miserable so you'd have to ask would it make sense for them to kill themselves.

Hmmm... You don't own an AK47 by any chance?

sk8erboii

A response to antinatalism is that life isnt about maximizing happiness or pleasure. Its about finding meaning in your suffering

Avatar MIA

sk8erboii wrote: »

A response to antinatalism is that life isnt about maximizing happiness or pleasure. Its about finding meaning in your suffering

That's a pretty shìt response/meaning of life.

brevity

Mental health aside, if you only focus on the ****e in life, everything is going to be ****e.

Sabrebo

brevity wrote: »

Mental health aside, if you only focus on the ****e in life, everything is going to be ****e.

Look at people who spend mist of their week miserable in jobs they hate, most of their waking hours is suffering, would they not be better off dead?

LessOutragePlz

It's going to very subjective each person is going to have a different view of pain and pleasure.

Personally I think it comes in waves throughout our lives there are certain points where you feel
life is filled with more pain and suffering than pleasure but, then there are times where life is full of pleasure and very enjoyable with minimal pain and suffering. I think it's about dealing with the peaks and troughs throughout our lives by reminding ourselves of the good times when we're dealing with pain and suffering and remembering that the good times can't last forever by acknowledging and accepting that. It will make the transition from good to bad times easier each time its happens.

LessOutragePlz

Sabrebo wrote: »

Look at people who spend mist of their week miserable in jobs they hate, most of their waking hours is suffering, would they not be better off dead?

Maybe they find meaning and enjoyment in their lives outside work. So they just go through the motions in work and get their enjoyment from life outside work. Them being better off dead is a ridiculous idea.

brevity

Sabrebo wrote: »

Look at people who spend mist of their week miserable in jobs they hate, most of their waking hours is suffering, would they not be better off dead?

But how do you know that they are not happy when they go home?

jiltloop

I don't think it's necessarily about the balance of pleasure:pain in your life but probably more so about how you look back on things. I tend to gloss over the bad stuff in my past and have rose tinted glasses. My memory tends to dwell on the highs rather than the lows, that's not a conscious thing it's luckily just the way my mind works.

Having said that I have had a relatively good life so far i.e the lows haven't been too low, fingers crossed it continues that way until the ultimate low......DEATH!!!

Avatar MIA

brevity wrote: »

But how do you know that they are not happy when they go home?

The person you are replying to is a WUM... Aka Chore Sex Guy.

henryporter

Thread reminds me of "A masochist says to a sadist 'hurt me' and the sadist says 'no'"

Sabrebo

brevity wrote: »

But how do you know that they are not happy when they go home?

Yes they could be, but they spend most of their waking hourse in a job they despise.

Danzy

noubliezjamais wrote: »

Well they do make a convincing argument. Having a kid guarantees pretty much suffering so why just not have one if you can avoid it? Life has no objective meaning and I would argue is quite arduous. Even if others have it much worse, does that really justify having a kid?

But the joy and satisfaction a child brings is incomparable.

They sound like a collective of mentally unwell people who are reinforcing each other.

Ficheall

Danzy wrote: »

But the joy and satisfaction a child brings is incomparable.

They sound like a collective of mentally unwell people who are reinforcing each other.

Joy for the adult, you mean. Does not necessarily signify a life of joy for a child. Unless you're proposing the grown-up chlidren themselves then double down and have children to bring themselves this incomparable joy?

RWCNT

noubliezjamais wrote: »

Came across an article on efilism/antinatalism online. Their arguments for not having children are the intensity of pain and suffering is much greater than pleasure, can last nearly forever (chronic pain), and doesn't take effort to create.

On the opposite side pleausure is almost always less intense (and is usually the absence of pain not good itself), extremely fleeting and requires effort.

I suppose some will go on that "others have it worse and cope" but maybe if they were given a choice they wouldn't want to be here??

The little things in life like food, sex, warmth, relationships are probably only worth it if you already have a minimum base level of pain/pleasure you don't cross. Once you go below that, no amount of kisses and chocolate can make up for getting punched in the face, losing a job, getting mugged etc..

Not my arguments by the way but many in the AN community. I wonder what you think. U agree?

I don't think the old school antinatalist philosophers were of the opinion that life contained more pleasure than pain, moreso that if the life you created inevitably suffers any pain then it renders your creation of such life immoral.

Nermal

sk8erboii wrote: »

A response to antinatalism is that life isnt about maximizing happiness or pleasure. Its about finding meaning in your suffering

Well said. Only a child would make maximising happiness the point of their life.

Ficheall

Nermal wrote: »

Well said. Only a child would make maximising happiness the point of their life.

What? What are you proposing to do with this "meaning"? Do you think there's a pop quiz at the Pearly Gates?


Maximising happiness (though the question of its distribution and doing no harm is a more complex issue) seems like a much more rational ambition.

Danzy

Ficheall wrote: »

Joy for the adult, you mean. Does not necessarily signify a life of joy for a child. Unless you're proposing the grown-up chlidren themselves then double down and have children to bring themselves this incomparable joy?

No, don't bring them up to be self indulgent narcissists who delight in pretending that No one had ever had it so bad.

It is that the people in the op have had it so good, but don't realize it.

They are a pity.

Ficheall

I don't think they're pretending that they have it worse than anyone else, just suggesting that the net utility derived from living the average life is not necessarily positive.

It's not an invalid notion. The metric is tricky, of course, and more so if living the happiest life is deemed to be a childish ambition, but that doesn't render the question absurd or the person who poses it a narcissist.

johnnyfoxy

I feel lucky that I have had a lot more pleasure than pain compared to others. I'd say generally there's a lot more pain in the world.

Ariadne

In my experience life is pain. Some pleasure too but mostly pain.

sk8erboii

Ficheall wrote: »

What? What are you proposing to do with this "meaning"? Do you think there's a pop quiz at the Pearly Gates?


Maximising happiness (though the question of its distribution and doing no harm is a more complex issue) seems like a much more rational ambition.

Then just shoot heroin until you OD.

sk8erboii

Avatar MIA wrote: »

That's a pretty shìt response/meaning of life.

The alternative proposed is killing yourself. Im not religious at all but a deep appeal of Christianity/Buddhism is that youre trying to find the meaning of whatevers causing you pain.


For example, the story of christ is about a man who is questioning his suffering. Only to realize it leads to his transcendance to become a better person. He ends up helping others.


Take that same story and apply to an addict who didnt kill himself, a doctor or anyone who has ever wanted to but instead kept living to improve others lives.

Antinatalism was invented by depressed intellectuals who wanted to rationalize their own pain: most of the literature were written by people who killed themselves straight afterwards. Ive read a bunch of their books and grew out of that emo phase when i was 16

Danzy

Ficheall wrote: »

I don't think they're pretending that they have it worse than anyone else, just suggesting that the net utility derived from living the average life is not necessarily positive.

It's not an invalid notion. The metric is tricky, of course, and more so if living the happiest life is deemed to be a childish ambition, but that doesn't render the question absurd or the person who poses it a narcissist.

If happiness is a person's ambition in life, then they will have a miserable life. More miserable than other's lives.

They will also cause problems for those around them.

They'll probably be kind, decent people but that won't matter, they'll become bitter or depressed, both or they'll let go the idea of happiness as a goal and then live lives that may be great.