NationStates Jolt Archive

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

Sounds good to me.

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

Or one could also argue that all life is indeed surffering and the best way to aliviate this is to take 'the middle way'.

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

People, and arguably animals, could terminate their lives on an individual basis if the suffering they endured wholly overwhelmed the pleasure they experienced. The fact that most of us have not suggests to me that this is rarely the case. So to make a blanket decision about "destroying all life" as a mercy killing ignores and contradicts billions of individual decisons to the contrary.

Which is a roundabout way of saying "No".

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

You could also argue that it would be against the interests of most beings affected to be 'euthanized' like that. Even though most lives are overall more painful than pleasurable we still want to live on, why not respect that? Or better yet, why don't we try to improve the living conditions of most living beings on earth, wouldn't that be preferable?

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

LOL!

Okay, for starters, just because life is painful for some does not mean that they want to die. Second, if they do want to die, they are more then capable of handling that responsibility themselves. Case closed.

Well without suffering I think it is a safe bet that we would not be having this discussion right now. Pleasure and comfort does not push living things to seek luxuries.

Without suffering I very much doubt humans would have ever moved beyond apes, simply because they would have had no catalyst to push evolution.

Besides suffering is relative. if you have never known anything but suffering then you would not give it a second thought. Your really only able to suffer because you are able to experience pleasure.

Pleasure and comfort does not push living things to seek luxuries.

If we were indifferent to suffering we wouldn't really care about these luxuries either, wouldn't we. I don't see anything intrinsically good in luxuries or technology. The only thing that might be good about them is that they alleviate suffering and bring pleasure (well, that's what they're supposed to do).

Of course I'm not sure, but I think that we can experience pleasure without experiencing suffering. Pleasure, as well as pain, is just the stimulations of certain area's of the brain. You can stimulate the 'pleasure area' without stimulation the 'pain area'. (in reality it's waaaaay more complicated) I'm not sure if we would be able to appreciate pleasure without ever experiencing pain though, but I kind of think we would.

Most animals lack the means to commit suicide. They act on instinct and not out of consideration for the future. They are programmed to live on despite what might be in their best interest. The claim that they make a choice to live is false in my opinion, for them the choice does not exist.

Besides, what they want is not necessarily relevant. If you had a baby and you were captured by someone you knew would torture you and your baby to the death, you would be inclined to kill it. The baby, as the animals, doesn't understand nor want to die but you're acting in it's best interest.

I prefer to preserve life by placing the 5th element in the middle of the circle. Especially because after that, so I have been told, I get to have sex with mila jovovich. Which is a plus

should we destroy all life?only the human life.

only the human life.

Why would we destroy the only race that probably is better off being alive?

Or is it that you think the animals would be better off without us? It's probably true that there would be more of them but they would not have a better quality of life.

Why would we destroy the only race that probably is better off being alive?

Or is it that you think the animals would be better off without us? It's probably true that there would be more of them but they would not have a better quality of life.

No, there would be less of them (less farm animals) and they would be better of (less farm animals).

I prefer to preserve life by placing the 5th element in the middle of the circle. Especially because after that, so I have been told, I get to have sex with mila jovovich. Which is a plus

:eek:

No, there would be less of them (less farm animals) and they would be better of (less farm animals).

I doubt farm animals are worse off than wild animals.

I doubt farm animals are worse off than wild animals.

:confused: I don't think so, maybe a few cows on large pieces of land but most farm animals I have seen are kept in small cages etc, well their living conditions didn't seem very good to say the least.
And even if they are, the main suffering I can see in the wild is due to humans (pollution, destroying habitat's etc., many of which is caused by our industrial farming methods) So if getting rid of humanity would solve those problems it would clearly help many animals to a better life.

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::sniper::gundge::gundge:

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.
Wouldnt it then make even more sense to destroy only that life which suffers? As you say, life is good for most of us, so our life should persist.

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::sniper::gundge::gundge:

Second post?

Why would we destroy the only race that probably is better off being alive?

Or is it that you think the animals would be better off without us? It's probably true that there would be more of them but they would not have a better quality of life.The planet would be better off without humans.

You remind me of the Jokela shooter's manifesto. "Yeah, let's kill absolutely everyone, that will be the best thing ever!"

life is brutal, no.

The biological purpose of all forms of life is, in its simplest form, to live. Destroying all life would effectively make anything that's ever happened pointless.

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

"A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in eating another with those of the animal being eaten." - A. Schoppenhauer

Nietzsche and Camus: Life is the absurd balance between man's will and his impotence to fulfil it in reality, so take life as it comes, live it to its fullest, live and let die.

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

It is not possible to concieve of every pleasure and pain imaginable.
You also make a poor assumption of morality, the problem with hedonism is it is not the only way to be moral.
It would not be worth it.
also pleasure does not equal morality, what about bravery, or compassion or love? aren't they as moral? why leave them out?
You also assume you know what life is like for the majority of people on this planet.

That logic is also contradictory, to stop killing you must kill?
No that does not work even remotely.
Like a mercy killing?
how can you wiegh up all the good things to all the bad things? you are not God you are not all human life no one can make that decision to judge all actions.
Well i think i've covered roughly why this does not work.

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

No. I can tell you from experience that living with pain and suffering is better than the alternative. To suggest otherwise is condescending and more than a tad offensive. I'm disabled and have lived with constant pain for the last 25 years, and yet I'm in no hurry to shuffle off the mortal coil. So you can take your "mercy killing" and go back to playing with your x-box.

No, ta.

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

Fuck yeah! you can only learn though experance and this would be the greastest experance ever

No, I like being alive.

No. I can tell you from experience that living with pain and suffering is better than the alternative. To suggest otherwise is condescending and more than a tad offensive. I'm disabled and have lived with constant pain for the last 25 years, and yet I'm in no hurry to shuffle off the mortal coil. So you can take your "mercy killing" and go back to playing with your x-box.

You so missed the point.

:confused: I don't think so, maybe a few cows on large pieces of land but most farm animals I have seen are kept in small cages etc, well their living conditions didn't seem very good to say the least.
And even if they are, the main suffering I can see in the wild is due to humans (pollution, destroying habitat's etc., many of which is caused by our industrial farming methods) So if getting rid of humanity would solve those problems it would clearly help many animals to a better life.

Pfft. You wouldn't happen to be a member of PETA would you? Pollution, destruction of habitats, deforestation and etc does not cause even close to significant suffering in the grand scheme of things. Watch some more animal planet.

The biological purpose of all forms of life is, in its simplest form, to live. Destroying all life would effectively make anything that's ever happened pointless.

Purpose? Life does not have inherent value nor purpose, these are human concepts and not applicable.

It is not possible to concieve of every pleasure and pain imaginable.

Thank you cpt. obvious.

You also make a poor assumption of morality, the problem with hedonism is it is not the only way to be moral.
It would not be worth it.
also pleasure does not equal morality, what about bravery, or compassion or love? aren't they as moral? why leave them out?

This has nothing to do with morality. You're making no sense.

You also assume you know what life is like for the majority of people on this planet.

Not limited to people. I think my assumption is pretty accurate and i think anyone who knew the first thing about nature would agree.

That logic is also contradictory, to stop killing you must kill?
No that does not work even remotely.

No it is not, if you kill everything, killing does actually stop. Besides, my statement was that to stop pain we must destroy every entity capable of feeling it.

how can you wiegh up all the good things to all the bad things? you are not God you are not all human life no one can make that decision to judge all actions.

Why can't I?...
God doesn't exist.
Again you seem to think this issue has something to do with right and wrong. read op, then post.

Well i think i've covered roughly why this does not work.

Work? wtf are you talking about?

Most animals lack the means to commit suicide. They act on instinct and not out of consideration for the future. They are programmed to live on despite what might be in their best interest. The claim that they make a choice to live is false in my opinion, for them the choice does not exist.

What you've just said actually further undermines your point. If animals live moment to moment, with no consideration for their future, how is killing them relieving their condition? They can't be "suffering" in any real sense of the word.



Besides, what they want is not necessarily relevant. If you had a baby and you were captured by someone you knew would torture you and your baby to the death, you would be inclined to kill it. The baby, as the animals, doesn't understand nor want to die but you're acting in it's best interest.

This is an absurd scenario that doesn't even begin to fit your argument. Are you suggesting most, even a significant minority, of living creatures undergo unrelenting torture?

What you've just said actually further undermines your point. If animals live moment to moment, with no consideration for their future, how is killing them relieving their condition? They can't be "suffering" in any real sense of the word.

I fail to see how a lack of understanding and disregard for the future relieves suffering...


This is an absurd scenario that doesn't even begin to fit your argument. Are you suggesting most, even a significant minority, of living creatures undergo unrelenting torture?

:headbang:

No. I'm saying animals are stupid (like babies) and we should do what's best for them regardless of what they "want".

Seriously... :rolleyes:

Besides, my statement was that to stop pain we must destroy every entity capable of feeling it.

So we won't stop pain. Pain is actually a pretty useful sensation. If you're in pain then something is wrong. If you weren't aware of that you might do yourself serious damage without realising it.

No. I'm saying animals are stupid (like babies) and we should do what's best for them regardless of what they "want".

Seriously... :rolleyes:Firstly, once they die, their suffering ceases to be relevant - hence, the fact that life includes suffering will not leave them worse off living in the end. Pain and pleasure in themselves are only relevant while they occur. Though the way our (including that of many other animals) brains work can make pain and pleasure have recurrent effects including more pain and pleasure (in one form or another), making it once again relevant - while it again occurs. Once dead, though, it will no longer (re)occur - and as such, never come of relevance again.

Secondly, relatively, we are also stupid. Which is a very good reason to question our judgment - we can be wrong; a reason not to apply judgment through action unnecessarily. And to bring up an ethical question, here's a hypothetical: What if there was a more intelligent form of life with a certain outlook on existence differing from ours to an extent similar to that of ours compared to that of the typical animal, and what if they wanted suffering to occur because it was "best for us"? If we by comparison were stupid, in the same way that you find (other) animals stupid, would that mean that they should do "what is best for us" regardless of what we "want", overriding our judgment regarding our lives (perhaps in the way that we do regarding that of other animals)? Consider then also the possibility of said hypothetical intelligence being limited, meaning that it could also be wrong? (end hypothetical before the introduction of massive recursion spinning it off somewhere far distant)

Thirdly, assuming life means nothing, why give any sort of crap regarding its existence? Doing so is to not recognize its complete neutrality of value, in the argument judging it negative. Which, if life truly has no meaning, does not make sense, just as promoting life would not. This here life started out somehow, and it will end somehow - such is the whole, as well as its individual parts, including such silly creatures as us. Meh. In the end, all your unrest will be no more, so you can just as well give it up now. Doesn't matter. Or will not matter. Is there a difference?

This topic is very original, and it keenly interests me. There is a problem with it, though, besides the ethical issue. If one were to destroy the world, isn't there a possiblity that somewhere out there is another world that has life? In order to make sure there would never be life again, you would have to destroy the universe as well, because there is always the chance some meteor would hit a random planet into the perfect position to start life. You would have to destroy each and every organic compound in the universe to insure that life would not begin.

Also, since you didn't state the physical consequences of this "super-consciousness", if you had to experience every feeling ever experienced, you would die instantly. You could have no chance to make the choice on whether or not to destroy the world.

I'd feel quite cheated if someone made this decision on my behalf. My existence has in fact been significantly more pleasurable than painful, thank you very much.

I'd feel quite cheated if someone made this decision on my behalf. My existence has in fact been significantly more pleasurable than painful, thank you very much.

Indeed, this raises the question of the right of one man to control another's existence.

I think if you include domestic cats in this equation, they'll tip the balance so tremendously that you'd feel about 90% pleasure and superiority.

I think if you include domestic cats in this equation, they'll tip the balance so tremendously that you'd feel about 90% pleasure and superiority.
Well, that solves it.

:)

Indeed, this raises the question of the right of one man to control another's existence.

What's more, I could see someone making an argument that I should be sacrificed so everyone else can live in a world without pain. I might disagree, but I could understand the argument. What I can't understand is the idea that I (and everyone else, for that matter) should be sacrificed so that no one can be around to enjoy a world without pain.

What's more, I could see someone making an argument that I should be sacrificed so everyone else can live in a world without pain. I might disagree, but I could understand the argument. What I can't understand is the idea that I (and everyone else, for that matter) should be sacrificed so that no one can be around to enjoy a world without pain.

It would be rather ironic.

I fail to see how a lack of understanding and disregard for the future relieves suffering...

Because most suffering comes from either the anticipation or the memory of pain. By your reasoning, animals have neither.




:headbang:

No. I'm saying animals are stupid (like babies) and we should do what's best for them regardless of what they "want".

Seriously... :rolleyes:

Oh, I see. You're claiming you know "what's best" for every living thing better than they do themselves. And that "what's best" is the same for all of them. That's not a stupid statement at all. :rolleyes:

If you were given the opportunity to experience every feeling that every being on this planet has had since life arose, would you? On one hand you get to experience every pleasure ever had but on the other hand you also get to experience every pain. I remind you that this includes the feelings of every animal, not just humans.

I doubt it would be an overall pleasurable experience. Although life for most of us is good, that is not so for the vast majority of beings on this planet. Nature is ruthless and painful and one could argue that destroying the planet and all life on it is the most humane thing to do.

Discuss.

Yes. Not just animals. We should kill off all plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses. Everthing should be destroyed. We should earth like Venus a dead hot planet with no chance of life ever coming back.

Because most suffering comes from either the anticipation or the memory of pain. By your reasoning, animals have neither.

That statement is utter bullcrap. Besides, I never said animals don't anticipate or remember pain. In fact, animals experience trauma just like Humans (makes sense since we're animals) do.

Oh, I see. You're claiming you know "what's best" for every living thing better than they do themselves. And that "what's best" is the same for all of them. That's not a stupid statement at all. :rolleyes:

No, you love to put words in my mouth, don't you? I'm saying I know what's best for them all as a group.

Firstly, once they die, their suffering ceases to be relevant - hence, the fact that life includes suffering will not leave them worse off living in the end. Pain and pleasure in themselves are only relevant while they occur. Though the way our (including that of many other animals) brains work can make pain and pleasure have recurrent effects including more pain and pleasure (in one form or another), making it once again relevant - while it again occurs. Once dead, though, it will no longer (re)occur - and as such, never come of relevance again.

Very clever :)

Secondly, relatively, we are also stupid. Which is a very good reason to question our judgment - we can be wrong; a reason not to apply judgment through action unnecessarily. And to bring up an ethical question, here's a hypothetical: What if there was a more intelligent form of life with a certain outlook on existence differing from ours to an extent similar to that of ours compared to that of the typical animal, and what if they wanted suffering to occur because it was "best for us"? If we by comparison were stupid, in the same way that you find (other) animals stupid, would that mean that they should do "what is best for us" regardless of what we "want", overriding our judgment regarding our lives (perhaps in the way that we do regarding that of other animals)? Consider then also the possibility of said hypothetical intelligence being limited, meaning that it could also be wrong? (end hypothetical before the introduction of massive recursion spinning it off somewhere far distant)

Interesting perspective. Especially if you replace aliens with god. I believe there is a distinct difference between ending existence and causing suffering however. For the reasons you mentioned above.

Thirdly, assuming life means nothing, why give any sort of crap regarding its existence? Doing so is to not recognize its complete neutrality of value, in the argument judging it negative. Which, if life truly has no meaning, does not make sense, just as promoting life would not. This here life started out somehow, and it will end somehow - such is the whole, as well as its individual parts, including such silly creatures as us. Meh. In the end, all your unrest will be no more, so you can just as well give it up now. Doesn't matter. Or will not matter. Is there a difference?

Well, although life does not have any inherent value, it does have value in the feelings it experiences. If the sum of feelings is negative (more suffering than enjoyment) the value of that life is negative.

I think if you include domestic cats in this equation, they'll tip the balance so tremendously that you'd feel about 90% pleasure and superiority.

Demigods don't count.

No. I happen to be part of all life, and as much as i care about other living things, it seems there's a whole lot of living things that happen to care about me too. Not that many of them want to destroy me. With the exception of my own species of course.

i'd be less interested in physical sensations then the experiences of crawling through and under fences, and going unnoticed behind keep out signs.

basically being able to expore all the places critters are and do.

=^^=
.../\...

Thank you cpt. obvious.
This has nothing to do with morality. You're making no sense.
Not limited to people. I think my assumption is pretty accurate and i think anyone who knew the first thing about nature would agree.
No it is not, if you kill everything, killing does actually stop. Besides, my statement was that to stop pain we must destroy every entity capable of feeling it.
Why can't I?...
God doesn't exist.
Again you seem to think this issue has something to do with right and wrong. read op, then post.
Work? wtf are you talking about?
Sometimes the obvious has to be stated to make sure you know what another person is talking about.
This has everything to do with morality, if that action is not moral i see no reason to follow through with it.
If you assume you know what all people are like then you are already arguing an invalid point.
You seem to want to override pain, while missing out some other key features of human existance such as oh i don't know not dieing being a start, or how about those people who actually enjoy their life would killing them make yours better? or end pain? perhaps it would end pain but it would be one of the least moral actions i can think of.
Pain is just another part of existance.
And what makes you so sure that a God does not exist?
This has massive implications for "right and wrong" as it would no longer exist, for starters criminals starting a long sentance in jail would escape without serving their punishment.
You're basically saying get rid of everyone and everything will be okay.
Yeah sure but then you're left with nothing, and with nothing you can't go very far.
Interesting for a short while, then it's obvious why it's wrong and pointless.

Pfft. You wouldn't happen to be a member of PETA would you? Pollution, destruction of habitats, deforestation and etc does not cause even close to significant suffering in the grand scheme of things.

No, I'm not. And I'm pretty sure it causes much suffering. Animals who are eaten are often already sick or otherwise weak. I'm pretty sure most healthy animals have a pretty 'enjoyable' life. There are always way more animals not being eaten or suffering than there are animals being eaten and suffering. And while suffering is often short, enjoyable or neutral moments can last longer.

Watch some more animal planet.

I don't know what animal planet is, but I assume some kind of television show. I think this might not be the best source on the lives of many animals since most television shows focus on sensational happenings. An antelope being eaten by a lion is much more sensational than an antelope living and enjoying it's life for a few years before it gets eaten. Therefore it might give you the wrong idea that most of the life of an antelope consists of running away from predators, while in reality it's mostly grazing and doing whatever antelopes do.

This has everything to do with morality, if that action is not moral i see no reason to follow through with it.

Morality in your case is a preconceived notion that some actions are good and bad when you really should be looking at the result of the action. It's a stupid idea for stupid people. If killing everything on this planet brings the sum of enjoyment-suffering up then it would be a good action.

If you assume you know what all people are like then you are already arguing an invalid point.

It doesn't matter what they're like... What the hell are you talking about anyway.

You seem to want to override pain, while missing out some other key features of human existence such as oh i don't know not dieing being a start, or how about those people who actually enjoy their life would killing them make yours better? or end pain? perhaps it would end pain but it would be one of the least moral actions i can think of.

All features of human existence that are of value comes down to feelings. Being alive has no inherent value. The people who enjoy their lives would be sacrificed for the relief of suffering of others.

Pain is just another part of existance.

Wow.

And what makes you so sure that a God does not exist?

What makes you so sure Zeus doesn't exist? Because it's a ridiculous idea for gullible people. He (as every other supernatural being) doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

This has massive implications for "right and wrong" as it would no longer exist, for starters criminals starting a long sentance in jail would escape without serving their punishment.

We put criminals in jail to deter further crime, isolate them from society and rehabilitate them. Not to punish them. It would be of no consequence.

You're basically saying get rid of everyone and everything will be okay.
Yeah sure but then you're left with nothing, and with nothing you can't go very far.

0 is higher than -1.

Interesting for a short while, then it's obvious why it's wrong and pointless.

Funny, that's what I thought about your post.... Except the interesting part.

No, I'm not. And I'm pretty sure it causes much suffering. Animals who are eaten are often already sick or otherwise weak. I'm pretty sure most healthy animals have a pretty 'enjoyable' life. There are always way more animals not being eaten or suffering than there are animals being eaten and suffering. And while suffering is often short, enjoyable or neutral moments can last longer.

Short and intense. We could debate whether or not animals live well or not all day but in the end I bet you still wouldn't want to experience every feeling of every living being that ever lived on this planet. The enjoyment just isn't worth the suffering you'd have to go trough.

I don't know what animal planet is, but I assume some kind of television show. I think this might not be the best source on the lives of many animals since most television shows focus on sensational happenings. An antelope being eaten by a lion is much more sensational than an antelope living and enjoying it's life for a few years before it gets eaten. Therefore it might give you the wrong idea that most of the life of an antelope consists of running away from predators, while in reality it's mostly grazing and doing whatever antelopes do.

How fulfilling for the antelope. I bet going around mindlessly grazing for 5 years more than makes up for being maimed by lion king and eaten alive. Antelopes doesn't have the worst of it anyway.

The planet would be better off without humans.
How do you figure?

Humans are the beings that seem most to enjoy themselves, so there's a utilitarian argument against eliminating us. Are you asserting that there is some superior humanless state we should prefer for the earth?

But aren't the sufferings in life sometimes necessary for greater good? One cannot get anywhere without any effort.

I don't get this. Life has no inherent value but experiences within do?

I mean sure, we like pleasure, we hate pain (when in not the BSDM sense :p), but as stated before neither these two sensations have any relevance upon death. Which occurs regardless of your intervention. Thus neither has any value, because neither transcends life, and you postulate that life itself has no inherent value.

Life occurs, then it ends, and when it ends nothing about it is relevant: not what purpose it has served, not its consequences on other life, nothing... because it has no way to interact with anything beyond the point of death. Thus your judgements about the values of pleasure and suffering are inconsequential - no dead person will ever regret suffering in his life. You can understand this, yet insist that somehow pain has some kind of relevance on life.

If life did not end by definition, or there was anything about it that transcends death, then your point would have some validity. But as you yourself postulate, life has no inherent value and there is nothing beyond death.

Thus, as relating to the initial question, there would be no qualitative distinction between the scenario in which you leave everything as it is and the one in which you destroy everything. All life ends, in its own time, by itself or by exterior factors and at that point value judgements on pleasure and pain are irrelevant. What you propose would make no difference. At all. Thus you have failed to justify taking the proposed action.

But aren't the sufferings in life sometimes necessary for greater good? One cannot get anywhere without any effort.

If this was true the total happiness would outweigh the total suffering.

Short and intense. We could debate whether or not animals live well or not all day but in the end I bet you still wouldn't want to experience every feeling of every living being that ever lived on this planet. The enjoyment just isn't worth the suffering you'd have to go trough.

I wouldn't even want to experience every feeling of every living bing on this planet even if the happiness outweighed the suffering. And it's quite important that you're sure that total suffering outweighs total happiness if you want to do something as radical as destroying the earth.

How fulfilling for the antelope. I bet going around mindlessly grazing for 5 years more than makes up for being maimed by lion king and eaten alive.

I'm pretty sure it does. being maimed by a lion is only short and the animal will probably be in shock, anyway it will be over soon (relative to five years, lions kill larger prey by choking them, which is pretty unpleasant and slow I guess). I guess many antelopes are pretty content just grazing, if you don't know better why assume they aren't content. (although I agree this whole discussion is pretty abstract, talking about content antelopes etc)

Anyway, the point I made is that without humans there would be less but more 'content' animals. I'm still pretty sure this is true, but I guess we could debate a few years about this and still not agree.

How do you figure?

Humans are the beings that seem most to enjoy themselves, so there's a utilitarian argument against eliminating us. Are you asserting that there is some superior humanless state we should prefer for the earth?

I think he meant that all other experiencing beings would be better of without us.

If this was true the total happiness would outweigh the total suffering.

Excellent point.

But why give up on something just because it isn't always enjoyable. For example, I love American football (I play for my high school). I have followed it all my life. However, I hate lifting to get physically prepared as it hurts. But if I didn't lift, I would have no chance of succeeding in the game or being ready.

No pain, no gain.

Excellent point.

But why give up on something just because it isn't always enjoyable. For example, I love American football (I play for my high school). I have followed it all my life. However, I hate lifting to get physically prepared as it hurts. But if I didn't lift, I would have no chance of succeeding in the game or being ready.

No pain, no gain.

Again, if the total pain didn't outweigh the total gain you wouldn't do it.

Although I agree we are talking about highly subjective things here; pain, happiness etc. This makes it very hard to qualify stuff like that. It could also be possible for instance that you are wrong, because I think it's obvious that people aren't always experts in comparing the two.

Again, if the total pain didn't outweigh the total gain you wouldn't do it.

Although I agree we are talking about highly subjective things here; pain, happiness etc. This makes it very hard to qualify stuff like that. It could also be possible for instance that you are wrong, because I think it's obvious that people aren't always experts in comparing the two.
True, true. Since my life's experience has been that of a middle-class U.S. Midwestern suburban white teenager, my perspective is very limited in many ways yet can be better in someways.

I think he meant that all other experiencing beings would be better of without us.
Even if that's true (which I don't concede), the only way eliminating us makes sense is you only do half of the equation and forget to count our happiness.

Our happiness counts.

Even if that's true (which I don't concede), the only way eliminating us makes sense is you only do half of the equation and forget to count our happiness.

Our happiness counts.

I agree, but so does the happiness of non-human animals, which we often seem to forget.