>>23978849
>Benatar's thesis of inequality between lack of pleasure and lack of suffering is wrong
debatable at best
>While suffering is bad, lack of suffering isn't good, it's just neutral, like lack of pleasure. Further, pleasure is as good in and of itself as suffering is bad in and of itself.
ok? good so far.
> Taken together, this implies that rather than minimizing suffering by minimizing existence, our imperative is the classical utilitarian demand of maximizing pleasure less pain. We shouldn't be seeking to voluntarily go extinct to minimize suffering lives, we should be seeking to construct as many minds in a state of maximum pleasure as possible and populating the universe with them. Our goal isn't the non-existance of consciousness, but maximizing pleasurable consciousness throughout the universe. I suggest using Von Neumann probes to convert as much of the universe's inert matter as possible into artificial minds designed to experience perpetual, maximum pleasure which they are designed to never bore of. This should be the end goal that technological society strives towards, which makes all of our suffering up to this point worthwhile.
ok, so the main issue here, is that first of all none of this is necessary. we don't to make brains that are in good hedonic states.
another thing is, you can't guarantee such a system to be stable, things that can go wrong will go wrong. entropy will ensure this.
you are just creating more potential for needless (((needless <--- for the dimwits here))) suffering.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

How do you debunk this? Do you just call him a retarded crybaby Platonist who assigns subjective categories to human beings and their experiences…