Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

CATHR is written in a different style than say, My Work is Not Yet Done or his other works which were tales on their own, even if they contained a lot of the underlying themes that found their way into CATHR.

I don't think what I wrote contradicts me liking and enjoying Ligotti's work, whether its a realistic depiction of human life or a supernatural tale of revenge.

It would be more appropriate for you to mention someone like Lovecraft who reveled in supernaturalism far more than Ligotti but who felt that the universe was indifferent and who was acutely aware that he is merely writing because consciousness is capable, due to its nature, to conjure up images of dread and terror which don't actually exist objectively out there outside of one's imagination. Same with Ligotti.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Yes, I go along with much of that. But you mentioned science. Is CATHR a scientific book?
I see it more as a literary/philosophical book.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Its not a scientific book per se like those of Dawkins or Feynman of course nor is it as cold and analytical as Benatar's book so in a sense I agree with you that its literary/philosophical compared to these. However, with that being said, it takes a lot of science as its underlying assumption even if it doesn't spell it out (Metzinger was the only purely scientific work that was mentioned there as far as I remember).

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

I think the following paper did a good job explaining why coming into existence is a harm:
CORE

"All actual human lives are so bad that it would have been better had all of us never come into existence. I also argue that our world is worse than an empty world. The nucleus of my view consists of the following two claims: i. Each person has an interest in acquiring a new satisfied preference. ii. Whenever a person is deprived of a new satisfied preference this violates an interest and is thus a harm with a finite disvalue. If one holds both (i) and (ii), then one is a deprivationalist. Any deprivationalist will have to claim that existence is worse for all actual persons than non-existence. "

One would have to read the paper to see the full arguments, but this is good for starters.

The examples here could be infinite: for instance, even not winning a lottery ticket (because that's a big preference) would be sufficient to claim (especially since its a repeated frustration of preference) that coming into existence was a harm.

I see it as such: despite everything Kramdar argued for, for me nothing but a utopia would justify bringing someone here (and that too could be debatable as I still wouldn't have consent, life still would be futile and meaningless and created by unintelligent design, immortality would still be an impossibility, etc) and so, due to the limited lifespan and the vicissitudes of life, since most preferences remain unfulfilled and get cut off anyways at death, we were all harmed by coming into existence and non-existence is better.

Furthermore, suicide is fully justified.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Doug Stanhope bringing the antinatalism to that pillar of kook radio, Alex Jones. We'll ruin space!

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

While that clip isn't as tremendous as it could possibly be, Stanhope's faith in humanity is still admirable. His faith that humanity could ruin the infinitude of unending outer space. If any creature could wreck the whole universe, yeah we're on the short list.

And Jones... probably a topic for another thread, but what a twisted mind. In some alternate world he is a writer of horror fiction, obscure and penniless. Babies with hair growing out of their mouths. A craven global elite that practice sex magic and have hatched a plan to reduce the world population to 500,000. Drinking water laced with stupidity drugs and hormone disruptors. The incremental dismantling of our individual will.

In an even more interesting alternate world, Stanhope and Jones are working together on a screenplay. An animated movie for children.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

I thought Richard Dawkins was great on Family Feud.