That's original to me, as far as I know, and I am very proud.
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Left-Wing Wacko
<leftwingwacko at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Max B. Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Productivity is swell but invariably (and measurably) overrated,
>> but that aside, there is a logical issue w/this pronouncement.
>>
>> If the people had not been born, they would not be people. They would
>> not exist. Better to exist than never to have existed makes no sense.
>> (Not the same as better to exist than to cease to exist.) Am I happy
>> to have been born? Happier than what?
>>
>> So there is no case that more people means a higher level of well-being,
>> that population growth in and of itself is desirable (unless you're
>> Robinson
>> Crusoe and you get bored with Friday).
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271766458&sr=8-1-catcorr
>
>
> Product Description
> Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed
> by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether
> they should bring others into existence---rather than having children
> without even thinking about whether they should---they presume that they do
> them no harm. *Better Never to Have Been* challenges these assumptions.
> David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm.
> Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it
> otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence
> if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However,
> by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not
> have befallen one had one not come into existence. Drawing on the relevant
> psychological literature, the author shows that there are a number of
> well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people
> systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus
> resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought
> into existence. The author then argues for the 'anti-natal' view---that it
> is always wrong to have children---and he shows that combining the
> anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yield
> a "pro-death" view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation).
> Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became
> extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended,
> not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about
> population.
>
> Haven't read it, but a provocative idea.
> Sheldon
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>