I don't see this as nihilism. Additionally, I don't see why adoption needs to be contingent on life becoming permanently better for all humans. If you want kids, and are able to provide an adopted child with a better life, I see that as a win-win. Under antinatalism, if you do not have any children already, the choice of adoption just reduces to the childfree case (e.g. do you find them annoying?). Therefore, your thought seems pretty much to line up with antinatalism.
That is not an unfair assumption to make. It is possible that people with depression have a disposition towards pessimism, nihilism, and antinatalism; however, I would like to know how that invalidates the position. Note that this philosophy has been exposed to people without depression as well, and so far, it has been incredibly hard to refute without assuming life, humanity, or sentience as positive things.
Philosophical pessimism, particularly Schopenhauerian thought, asserts that suffering is the default state of life, and happiness is merely a temporary alleviation of it. This makes sense when viewed through an evolutionary lens. Suffering is what drives us to avoid death, while pleasure serves as reinforcement that the death-defying action is favorable to our continued existence.
Consider a primitive person being hunted by a predator. That person experiences suffering, which prompts them to escape. They outrun the predator and avoid death. Then they experience happiness, which acts as reinforcement to continue the escape behavior. This is why we experience pain more intensely than pleasure. If it were not so, the primitive person would have died and we would have never been here. This principle applies to hunger, loneliness, insomnia, and similar biological drives.
Some propose the argument that life would be worth it once suffering is solved. Under the reasoning I presented above, I do not see how this could be "solved". How will you solve death economically? How will you remove or solve bereavement? How will you permanently solve disease?
Let us say you selectively keep pumping dopamine and serotonin, and selectively inhibit their reuptake whilst constantly monitoring pleasure and pain. Will this not be detrimental to your survival? What if you run into scenarios where it is necessary for you to "escape"?
As I see it, suffering is necessary for survival; it needs to be the default state, and it is experienced more intensely than pleasure. We, as already existing beings, need suffering, but it need not be imposed on the non-existent.
As I understand it, being childfree simply means not having and not wanting children. There doesn’t need to be a philosophical reason for that; reasons such as finding children annoying can be enough. Antinatalists, however, are philosophically opposed to procreation. They believe that suffering is an overwhelming part of life (stemming from disease, financial status, bereavement, and many others), and they argue it would be better if someone were never exposed to it in the first place. Existing beings, though, learn to deal with it.
Because antinatalism is a philosophy and childfree is a life choice, you will see people across the entire spectrum.
Some people are childfree (do not have or want kids) but are not philosophically inclined to any specific position. They do not necessarily want the human race to end.
Some people are childfree and antinatalist (philosophically opposed to procreation). Antinatalists may or may not care about extinction. Some ideally want human extinction (anthropocentric extinction), while others want the extinction of all sentient beings (sentiocentric extinction). Some others do not care about extinction at all because it is not practically possible. It should be noted that antinatalists favor voluntary extinction through peaceful means only.
Some people are not childfree (they have children) but became antinatalist only after having them.
Personally, I started out as childfree and later became an antinatalist. I don't like how noisy children are. I can spend some time with children, but after a certain threshold, I get really tired and annoyed. Also, my depression and anxiety play a large part in my decision not to bring children into the world. I don't want them to go through all this bullshit (and this is where antinatalism comes in).
If I ever "change my mind" like countless people suggest, I’ll just adopt.
I think you should be able to edit permissions in the extension's manifest.json. I don't know if they will be overwritten by updates though. I was working on an experimental local add-on, so I had more control over it.
I'm still young, but I think there is a non-zero and significant chance of me dying alone. Even the thought of it scares me. Also, I think it is a terrible thing for a child (no matter how old) to go through. Man, I'm never having kids, lol!
Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were talking about antinatalists ending existent life.
Yes, in the ideal scenario, I think it is best to "end" all life, via gradually phasing out of existence. I think that would cause minimal suffering. I do not realistically think that it could happen in the next generation (or in any generation owing to how extreme and controversial it is perceived by the general population).
Sure, you can be compassionate and empathetic to existing beings, but I see not bringing new beings out of empathy (due to the potentiality of their guaranteed suffering) to be more moral and a purer form of the trait.
Not sure what you mean by that. Neither I nor antinatalism advocates for ending existent life. It is just about not causing additional suffering by bringing new beings into existence.
If anything, I believe that we should acknowledge that we are all in this suffering together, and be compassionate to fellow living beings.
I do want the human race to end though. Not painfully, but rather phasing out gradually (although I do realize that antinatalism is such an unpopular opinion that it isn't really possible). No hate for children or any other being though. I just want there to be less suffering.
I somewhat agree with you. The meaning you describe seems personal (correct me if I am wrong), i.e. we assign meaning to our own lives. The meaning I was referring to in my previous comment was a more absolute take on it; the kind of meaning people refer to when they are searching for it. From my perspective, people search for an all encompassing absolute meaning (or rather a guidebook) which tells them that they are here for something. I disagree with that perspective, and I think there is no such meaning or guidebook. We are not here for any grand purpose, we just exist because someone else got together and thought it'd be nice to be a parent (in the best of situations). I agree with you however, in that, we must assign meaning to our own lives, just so our lives won't feel empty. It is more like drawing your own scenery on a canvas instead of looking for the perfect one.
I understand that this is a bleak perspective, but I see this as the true nature of suffering; and by acknowledging it, we can be more compassionate to our fellow sufferers. Although the perspective itself is bleak, the conclusion need not be. You can learn to live, stuff your life with pleasurable moments, and make the most of it, whilst helping others do the same.
Life. Life itself is suffering. Life is the worst thing to have happened to anyone.
Regarding purpose, no one has any purpose. Purpose is assigned to tools; not to sentient beings with consciousness. Life is utterly meaningless, and it is due to this lack of meaning, that we search for superfluous things like purpose.
The true nature of life is suffering. The default state of life is pain. Everything you do from there is just to temporarily alleviate that pain. You keep doing that until you die.
We have friends and lovers because loneliness is painful.
We eat because hunger is painful.
We sleep because deprivation from it is painful.
We laugh so that we can escape from crying.
People say suffering is a hurdle, and see it as something essential for character development, and whilst I acknowledge the essentiality of some types of pain, I also see it as something contingent on life. We suffer because we are alive. All sentient and conscious beings suffer. It just comes with life.
Note that I am not however, promoting termination of life. By terminating your life early, you would be depriving yourself of all the potential pleasures you could have had (regardless of the pain around them). Once you are here, your optimization problem should be maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. So, whilst the asymmetry still exists, the potentiality for pleasure might (/should?) be enough of an reason to continue living. I do acknowledge that exceptions do exist where the asymmetry is so skewed for some, to the extent that there is little to no potential pleasure for them, in which case, it might be preferable for them to terminate their own life (think extremely painful chronic/terminal illnesses). I'm sorry if this feels a bit loosey-goosey.
With all that said, I believe we are all sufferers from the incurable disease of life. And the only thing to do from here is to vehemently struggle and rebel against suffering. To help our fellow sufferers and maximize the pleasurable moments. To do everything we can to cope with life whilst still being aware of the true suffering it stands for.
For anyone else like me who didn't understand on a first read what OP is saying (it's not you OP, it's me; I am a single brain celled organism):
Say Alice has generated keys pub_a and priv_a.
Bob generated keys pub_b and priv_b and Bob has the unencrypted message msg_b.
We assume:
# Bob encrypts with Alice's public key
enc_b = pub_a(msg_b)
# Alice decrypts with her private key
priv_a(enc_b) = msg_b
Now, let's say WhatsApp has generated keys pub_w and priv_w.
# WhatsApp reads the unencrypted message
enc_b1 = pub_w(msg_b)
msg_b = priv_w(enc_b2)
# And then re-encrypts it with Alice's public key
enc_b2 = pub_a(msg_b)
msg_b = priv_a(enc_b2)
I just did a quick search, and found that you can verify the public key fingerprint. In WhatsApp, it is via the chat settings window -> Verify Security Code.
I myself haven't seen any age verification popups yet, due to me always being on a VPN, but I admire you for writing the bypass and making it open source.
I hope this continues to work, but seeing how dystopian the surveillance is getting, I won't be surprised if everything is handled in the backend in the near future (client <-> server, client <-> verification provider, server <-> verification provider); sort of like how payments are handled.
What the fuck are they supposed to do? Burn down the company, and go homeless? As a Linux daily driver (both home and work; I'm just fortunate on the latter), you are making a really dumb argument.
I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that people do not understand this. Like, why would you ever think that you have more money than the amount deposited in your account?! I am guessing it is regional — restricted to places with poor financial hygiene/literacy due to whatever reasons.
(Despite the em-dash, I am not an AI. Two plus two is four
Minus one, that's three.)
I don't see this as nihilism. Additionally, I don't see why adoption needs to be contingent on life becoming permanently better for all humans. If you want kids, and are able to provide an adopted child with a better life, I see that as a win-win. Under antinatalism, if you do not have any children already, the choice of adoption just reduces to the childfree case (e.g. do you find them annoying?). Therefore, your thought seems pretty much to line up with antinatalism.
That is not an unfair assumption to make. It is possible that people with depression have a disposition towards pessimism, nihilism, and antinatalism; however, I would like to know how that invalidates the position. Note that this philosophy has been exposed to people without depression as well, and so far, it has been incredibly hard to refute without assuming life, humanity, or sentience as positive things.
Philosophical pessimism, particularly Schopenhauerian thought, asserts that suffering is the default state of life, and happiness is merely a temporary alleviation of it. This makes sense when viewed through an evolutionary lens. Suffering is what drives us to avoid death, while pleasure serves as reinforcement that the death-defying action is favorable to our continued existence.
Consider a primitive person being hunted by a predator. That person experiences suffering, which prompts them to escape. They outrun the predator and avoid death. Then they experience happiness, which acts as reinforcement to continue the escape behavior. This is why we experience pain more intensely than pleasure. If it were not so, the primitive person would have died and we would have never been here. This principle applies to hunger, loneliness, insomnia, and similar biological drives.
Some propose the argument that life would be worth it once suffering is solved. Under the reasoning I presented above, I do not see how this could be "solved". How will you solve death economically? How will you remove or solve bereavement? How will you permanently solve disease?
Let us say you selectively keep pumping dopamine and serotonin, and selectively inhibit their reuptake whilst constantly monitoring pleasure and pain. Will this not be detrimental to your survival? What if you run into scenarios where it is necessary for you to "escape"?
As I see it, suffering is necessary for survival; it needs to be the default state, and it is experienced more intensely than pleasure. We, as already existing beings, need suffering, but it need not be imposed on the non-existent.
(Sorry if I went into a tangent, lol!)
As I understand it, being childfree simply means not having and not wanting children. There doesn’t need to be a philosophical reason for that; reasons such as finding children annoying can be enough. Antinatalists, however, are philosophically opposed to procreation. They believe that suffering is an overwhelming part of life (stemming from disease, financial status, bereavement, and many others), and they argue it would be better if someone were never exposed to it in the first place. Existing beings, though, learn to deal with it.
Because antinatalism is a philosophy and childfree is a life choice, you will see people across the entire spectrum.
Personally, I started out as childfree and later became an antinatalist. I don't like how noisy children are. I can spend some time with children, but after a certain threshold, I get really tired and annoyed. Also, my depression and anxiety play a large part in my decision not to bring children into the world. I don't want them to go through all this bullshit (and this is where antinatalism comes in).
If I ever "change my mind" like countless people suggest, I’ll just adopt.
Go back to the void, you mean?
I see. I wasn't aware of the Scυnthorpe problem. Thanks for the link.
I see that lemmy uses a
slur_regexto replace slurs with*removed*: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/439734dd638a2c06a2f907beab7dcf4646e88f86/crates/utils/src/utils/slurs.rs#L5I don't know what lemmy.ml's regex is, but I know that cυnts aren't appreciated there, lol.
Don't worry friend, I got you. I looked it up and I reckon he is referring to "Scunthorpe".
https://www.viking.no/e/england/e-pl-england.htm
I think you should be able to edit
permissionsin the extension'smanifest.json. I don't know if they will be overwritten by updates though. I was working on an experimental local add-on, so I had more control over it.See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json
I'm still young, but I think there is a non-zero and significant chance of me dying alone. Even the thought of it scares me. Also, I think it is a terrible thing for a child (no matter how old) to go through. Man, I'm never having kids, lol!
Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were talking about antinatalists ending existent life.
Yes, in the ideal scenario, I think it is best to "end" all life, via gradually phasing out of existence. I think that would cause minimal suffering. I do not realistically think that it could happen in the next generation (or in any generation owing to how extreme and controversial it is perceived by the general population).
Sure, you can be compassionate and empathetic to existing beings, but I see not bringing new beings out of empathy (due to the potentiality of their guaranteed suffering) to be more moral and a purer form of the trait.
Not sure what you mean by that. Neither I nor antinatalism advocates for ending existent life. It is just about not causing additional suffering by bringing new beings into existence.
If anything, I believe that we should acknowledge that we are all in this suffering together, and be compassionate to fellow living beings.
I do want the human race to end though. Not painfully, but rather phasing out gradually (although I do realize that antinatalism is such an unpopular opinion that it isn't really possible). No hate for children or any other being though. I just want there to be less suffering.
I somewhat agree with you. The meaning you describe seems personal (correct me if I am wrong), i.e. we assign meaning to our own lives. The meaning I was referring to in my previous comment was a more absolute take on it; the kind of meaning people refer to when they are searching for it. From my perspective, people search for an all encompassing absolute meaning (or rather a guidebook) which tells them that they are here for something. I disagree with that perspective, and I think there is no such meaning or guidebook. We are not here for any grand purpose, we just exist because someone else got together and thought it'd be nice to be a parent (in the best of situations). I agree with you however, in that, we must assign meaning to our own lives, just so our lives won't feel empty. It is more like drawing your own scenery on a canvas instead of looking for the perfect one.
I understand that this is a bleak perspective, but I see this as the true nature of suffering; and by acknowledging it, we can be more compassionate to our fellow sufferers. Although the perspective itself is bleak, the conclusion need not be. You can learn to live, stuff your life with pleasurable moments, and make the most of it, whilst helping others do the same.
Life. Life itself is suffering. Life is the worst thing to have happened to anyone.
Regarding purpose, no one has any purpose. Purpose is assigned to tools; not to sentient beings with consciousness. Life is utterly meaningless, and it is due to this lack of meaning, that we search for superfluous things like purpose.
The true nature of life is suffering. The default state of life is pain. Everything you do from there is just to temporarily alleviate that pain. You keep doing that until you die.
We have friends and lovers because loneliness is painful. We eat because hunger is painful. We sleep because deprivation from it is painful. We laugh so that we can escape from crying.
People say suffering is a hurdle, and see it as something essential for character development, and whilst I acknowledge the essentiality of some types of pain, I also see it as something contingent on life. We suffer because we are alive. All sentient and conscious beings suffer. It just comes with life.
Note that I am not however, promoting termination of life. By terminating your life early, you would be depriving yourself of all the potential pleasures you could have had (regardless of the pain around them). Once you are here, your optimization problem should be maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. So, whilst the asymmetry still exists, the potentiality for pleasure might (/should?) be enough of an reason to continue living. I do acknowledge that exceptions do exist where the asymmetry is so skewed for some, to the extent that there is little to no potential pleasure for them, in which case, it might be preferable for them to terminate their own life (think extremely painful chronic/terminal illnesses). I'm sorry if this feels a bit loosey-goosey.
With all that said, I believe we are all sufferers from the incurable disease of life. And the only thing to do from here is to vehemently struggle and rebel against suffering. To help our fellow sufferers and maximize the pleasurable moments. To do everything we can to cope with life whilst still being aware of the true suffering it stands for.
For anyone else like me who didn't understand on a first read what OP is saying (it's not you OP, it's me; I am a single brain celled organism):
Say Alice has generated keys
pub_aandpriv_a. Bob generated keyspub_bandpriv_band Bob has the unencrypted messagemsg_b.We assume:
Now, let's say WhatsApp has generated keys
pub_wandpriv_w.I just did a quick search, and found that you can verify the public key fingerprint. In WhatsApp, it is via the chat settings window -> Verify Security Code.
I also found this white paper: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Key-Transparency-Whitepaper.pdf
Although, I have to admit I didn't read it yet (may be I'll read it sometime later).
Thinking about it, I agree that the best way would be sharing public keys over a different trusted channel unrelated to the main service.
Am I the only one who thinks it is cute? This is far from nightmare fuel!
Lol, is it just an
onclosedfunction call?!I myself haven't seen any age verification popups yet, due to me always being on a VPN, but I admire you for writing the bypass and making it open source.
I hope this continues to work, but seeing how dystopian the surveillance is getting, I won't be surprised if everything is handled in the backend in the near future (client <-> server, client <-> verification provider, server <-> verification provider); sort of like how payments are handled.
Yeah, I get all that. But, did you ever install a Linux ISO at 3am with a friend (or more)?! That's better than sex!
What the fuck are they supposed to do? Burn down the company, and go homeless? As a Linux daily driver (both home and work; I'm just fortunate on the latter), you are making a really dumb argument.
I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that people do not understand this. Like, why would you ever think that you have more money than the amount deposited in your account?! I am guessing it is regional — restricted to places with poor financial hygiene/literacy due to whatever reasons.
(Despite the em-dash, I am not an AI. Two plus two is four Minus one, that's three.)
Windows users think I'm a nutjob. Mac users think I'm poor. And I think I'm superior.