Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 35 points 3 years ago (11 children)

Nobody should have kids, we should just drift off into extinction. Nobody has been able to tell me why that would be a bad thing without using anthropocentric reasoning.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [โ€“] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If we all die who would take care of our pets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If you really think about it, why should life itself exist at all? The purpose of life is to simply reproduce. Well... what if it didn't? Nothing, it just wouldn't exist. It is a bad thing or a good thing?

    You can get very philosophical with this one, but I do agree that we humans deserve to fade out. So many atrocities, so much... pain, and all for really stupid reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] -2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Forget all the worst atrocities. Think about average people going about their daily lives.

    It's the weekend. You go out and buy some food, some treats, a bottle of wine, some ice tea, some coffee, a new pair of jeans, you have an ice cream, etc. You could drink tap water. You could eat only rice with lentils. You could wear that old pair of trousers, even though they have a hole in them. That would have saved you 100 bucks.

    You could have donated that 100 bucks to a charity that saved a child's life. We all know that 100 dollars goes a long way in the third world. Instead we choose to spend that money on luxuries. You could have volunteered at a local charity. Instead you chose to go shopping. If you saw some kid drowning in a puddle, watched the kid die a preventable death as you were eating an ice cream, that would be evil. We all do that on a daily basis. We know our choices cause suffering, but because that suffering happens far away and we don't get to see it happen, we happily ignore it. That's everyone. Some of us are "I'll sometimes buy an ice cream and let a baby cow get turned into pate" evil. Some of us are "I'll buy gold toilets while a hundred kids die." evil. But arguably no one is actually good.

    I think the only way to forgive ourselves for our constant daily selfishness and depravity, is to accept that humans aren't that special. We're evolved primates. We are animals who act on instinct and lack the empathy or intelligence to ever become truly moral. You might as well expect a jelly fish to sing a ballad. It is not in our nature to become anything better than what we are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 years ago

    I mean, your argument is "we can't ever be perfect so we should never even aspire to be good", which is sortof putting the cart before the horse. That we can even recognize the distinction of not being special already places in a position where we can try and do a little better. What is better, how much, or how? What even is good or morality? All of those questions are at necessity to even define good, let alone become it. Before even glancing at perfect. Sure it might be an eternal inane treadmill, but just as fish have gills to breathe, we by chance of fate have the organs necessary to think. And that's just as much in our nature. The fish doesn't consider how long it has to swim, it just does it towards a target it can see/sense. By the same mechanism that means we aren't special, why shouldn't, why wouldn't, we do the same thing? Just because what we can see/sense may be artificial, imagined, or drempt?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Lack of good = neutral

    Lack of bad = good

    Non-existence is always preferrable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] -2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Funny how people asserting that, continues existing to assert that. I find that very inconsistent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So you don't see a difference between never having existed and killing yourself? Weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You're the one whining about how to bad existing is. Fixing would be more consistent.

    Mind you, I think you're wrong, but at least we would avoid the whining.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    There is no fixing, suffering is inherent to sentient existence. Come back to me when you have actually thought about it instead of giving the typicsl knee-jerk reaction of "suicide tho", "whining tho".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, I'm offering you a solution for your pain. But I find absolutely unbearable that you are intent on transmitting your misery and making life worse for everybody else. If you find life unbearable, please do so In silence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 3 years ago

    There Are many ecosystems that hardly depend on human activity. Fields And cities, but also fragile places as orchid maedows.
    In some parts of world (Europe definitelly), these ecosystems evolved right after the end of the last ice age, there was no interregnum of "Wild forests" (with this part I'm not so sure, but if it weren't true, It doesn't affect the main argument).
    Without humans, these ecosystems would rapidly get destroyed by bushes And forests, part of the manifold world would have gone.

    And yes, I aknowledge that were destroing these ecosystems too, by industrialized agronomy. And I understand the feeling nature=forests without human disturbing, but it's simply not the whole picture.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    We would be the first species on Earth to have ever done so.

    Not sure if that's good or bad. Just thought it's an interesting point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments