Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England

Scroll to see replies

Like I've said, you misunderstood it then. The highest priority in that statement was that "nobody suffers". Which is pretty much the epitome of minimising suffering.

As I've said, in general none of those things are "delaying extinction". What we were talking about earlier is a very specific, hypothetical nuclear holocaust scenario that has 100% chance of causing extinction.

If we're talking about medicine, peace, agriculture and infrastructure, again, I refer you back to what I said earlier: "Diseases, war, and a lack of agriculture / infrastructure generally don't cause extinction. For the most part they cause additional suffering and premature death on top of what humanity will already experience due to extinction." My position is that we should still have them, not particularly to "delay extinction", but rather to alleviate this additional suffering.

That makes no difference. You are throwing out the principle of wanting to reduce suffering if you are happy to avoid suffering for yourself by passing it on to a future generation (who, as you very often say, could experience it more than the current generation). It is a position rooted in selfishness.

Of course they delay extinction, by their very nature they are all things which enable humanity to survive. If we stopped having them then billions of people will die and there will be close to nobody left, if anyone.

Reply 201

tazarooni89

Original post by SHallowvale

Of course they delay extinction, by their very nature they are all things which enable humanity to survive. If we stopped having them then billions of people will die and there will be close to nobody left, if anyone.

Again, not true at all. We've lacked all of those things in the past; we've never gone extinct as a result.

Most wars, diseases etc. don't cause extinction. Hence for the most part, medicine, world peace etc. are solving problems that have nothing to do with extinction. So they’re still beneficial, even if one doesn’t believe that delaying extinction is worthwhile.

(edited 6 months ago)

Reply 202

SHallowvale

Original post by tazarooni89

Not true at all. That's just a deliberate misinterpretation of the principle. I've been clear enough with it, that minimising suffering is the highest priority (before any consideration of who is suffering).

You also didn't answer my question earlier. Who would you prefer to experience suffering: yourself and your loved ones, or random people you'll never meet (assuming it's the same extent of suffering in both cases)?

Again, not true at all. We've lacked all of those things in the past; we've never gone extinct as a result.

Most wars, diseases etc. don't cause extinction. Hence for the most part, medicine, world peace etc. are solving problems that have nothing to do with extinction. So they’re still beneficial, even if one doesn’t believe that delaying extinction is worthwhile.

That doesn't change anything. Just because you say you want to minimise suffering doesn't mean your actions, in practice, would do that.

I can answer that question in numerous ways but it none of them would change anything. We are discussing your position on suffering, nihilism. Selfishness isn't incompatible with my position, but with nihilism it is.

Then simply add to that list the things people of the past had instead; hunting and gathering, caves to hide in, etc. The previous list were merely the modern equivalent. All of these things maintain human survival, without them we would go extinct.

Reply 203

tazarooni89

Original post by SHallowvale

That doesn't change anything. Just because you say you want to minimise suffering doesn't mean your actions, in practice, would do that.

I can answer that question in numerous ways but it none of them would change anything. We are discussing your position on suffering, nihilism. Selfishness isn't incompatible with my position, but with nihilism it is.

What do you mean, you can "answer it in numerous ways?" The question gave you two options, it's either one or the other. If this is just a way to get out of answering it, I'd rather we don't waste the time again, and you can just say you don't want to answer it. (Or I'll assume that's the case if you don't do so in your next post).

Then simply add to that list the things people of the past had instead; hunting and gathering, caves to hide in, etc. The previous list were merely the modern equivalent. All of these things maintain human survival, without them we would go extinct.

The same is true of those things as well. Just because something helps maintain human survival doesn't mean that the only purpose it serves is "delaying extinction" (if it even does that at all) and that there's no other benefit to having them. If I'm a caveman, hunting, gathering and having a cave to hide in all make my life more comfortable, and they make it less likely that I'll die early. Whether that delays extinction or not, I'm obviously still going to want them. There's nothing nihilistic about it.

(edited 6 months ago)

Reply 204

SHallowvale

Original post by tazarooni89

Why not? Whether I'm suffering nuclear extinction or a future person is suffering nuclear extinction doesn't change the amount of suffering that is taking place. Either of the two could be perfectly compatible with "minimising suffering".

What do you mean, you can "answer it in numerous ways?" The question gave you two options, it's either one or the other. If this is just a way to get out of answering it, I'd rather we don't waste the time again, and you can just say you don't want to answer it. (Or I'll assume that's the case if you don't do so in your next post).

The same is true of those things as well. Just because something helps maintain human survival doesn't mean that the only purpose it serves is "delaying extinction" (if it even does that at all) and that there's no other benefit to having them. If I'm a caveman, hunting, gathering and having a cave to hide in all make my life more comfortable, and they make it less likely that I'll die early. Whether that delays extinction or not, I'm obviously still going to want them. There's nothing nihilistic about it.

"Whether I'm suffering nuclear extinction or a future person is suffering nuclear extinction doesn't change the amount of suffering that is taking place." Not according to what you said previously, we spent great lengths on this exact question (i.e. that we do not know if one extinction event will cause more more less suffering than another, future extinction event). Plus, even if the two caused the same amount of suffering your position would still be at odds with the principle you claimed to be following earlier, that we shouldn't care about stopping an extinction event if it only pushes extinction (suffering) to another generation. Your exception to this, when you are affected, is merely born out of selfishness and is incompatible with that principle. If selfishness is a valid enough argument for ignoring your principles then it can easily be used to justify climate action.

That's what I meant, I could say either "yes" or "no" to your question and along those paths I could give various answers. I didn't give any answer, though, because it wouldn't make a different to my argument. Selfishness, if it is at all used as a reason, is not incompatible with my position. Either we do or do not accept selfishness as a reason, it doesn't make a different. Yourself, on the other hand, have presented a nihilistic philosophy for how we should approach suffering. This philosphy is incompatible with selfishness, so it matters far more to your position that you have adopted a selfish argument.

The same applies to climate action. Climate action doesn't just prevent extinction, it has other benefits just like medicine, agriculture and everything else that maintains humanity and keeps us alive. Depending on how it's addressed it can give us cleaner air, cleaner water and better quality food, allows us to extend our life expectancy, improve climate conditions and reduce the frequrncy of extreme climate events, etc. So I am not seeing any differences between the two. If nihilism says that we shouldn't care about climate action because it delays extinction to another generation then we should also drop everything else would keep humanity alive. In other words, humanity stops and we get nowhere. It's a ridiculous philosophy to take.

Reply 205

Emma:-)

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by Tracey_W

The whole UK should have done this a year ago when Scotland did it.

The amount of fast food rubbish around the whole country is ridiculous as obviously majority of it can't be recycled but hopefully now that they have started to bring in recycling packaging it will improve loads.
Think McDonald's has the right idea with the separate slots for what can be recycled