Promortalism by Gontlemang General-Segolodi

The idea that procreation is illogical (existential antinatalism) & the idea that it is logical for any mortal living being to cease to exist as soon as possible (existential promortalism) are unique extinctionist ideologies introduced by the World Death Organization.

There is no need for concern over any “moral/ethical implications” because the concept of “morality/ethics” is fictitious.

They are both supported by 3 arguments.

The first is called the argument from unnecessary complexity. It states that in the world there exist living things and non living things & living things do not add any value to the universe because if they were to all go extinct this would not result in any problems. A universe with life isn’t in any way “better” than one which is lifeless. Life gives the universe unnecessary complexity & so it is illogical to create or preserve it as this is pointless.

The second is called the argument from a lack of purpose. It states that it is impossible to prove that a living organism must continue living or that it must create new life, since this would amount to a moral claim & morality is a fictitious concept. As such, it is illogical to do something that you have no obligation to do. One could argue that there is no moral obligation to be dead either so being dead is illogical. This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.

The third is called the argument from a universal solution. Know life, know problems. No life, no problems. It states that every living thing has to solve problems. The word, “problems” here, is used in a general sense, to refer to having desires. To have a desire simply means to want something. The nature of the desire, doesn’t matter. This argument states that it is illogical to create offspring who will have desires, since they did not need or want anything before they were born. It goes on to state that death is the most logical reaction to having any desires, because death gets rid of desires themselves. Consider for example, the fact that we need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you died instead, you would no longer need to eat for good. On a larger scale, rather than governments spending huge amounts of money & effort on agriculture, it would instead be a more sensible action to organize a total omnicide, to avoid the need for food production.

More information [link deleted by moderator]

 

Well. That’s a barrel of laughs.

 

The only reason I ever needed to disregard the nihilistic "Mankind is a plague on the Earth, let's all kill ourselves" people is because they're a bunch of dummyheads. My response to them is "Ok—you go first."

 

I'm surpriseed the member is still here, given that what he wants to discuss are these nutjob ideas, not a "published work".

I use the word "discuss" quite wrongly, of course.

 

Humanity is, as far as we know (but unlikely to be), the only sapient and somewhat intelligent species in our universal neighbourhood. It is our responsibility to investigate life and the universe. And if we meet other sapient beings, we should work together to pool our resources towards exploring reality.

Killing ourselves will serve no purpose. We must extend our lives and breed more, so that we can populate other planets when the time is right.

But then, I am a believer in humanity and its capability of beauty. I have seen it. Sure, we have an ugly side to us, but so does everything.

For all Mankind!

 

But oh so much fun!