Untitled attachment

@freemo Well, to discuss this dimension, we need an actual definition of suffering.

What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?

I would include some form of consciousness, as in “current LLMs might output the phrase ‘i am suffering’, but they do not, as they purely remix”.
Animals do change behaviour, they can sometimes detect context (something happened accidentially). At least mammals can, probably many more species.

So, if you include first nervous cells developing, i would argue that you are including a /potential/ for suffering, but not demanding actual suffering. The same would be true from conception, taken to the extreme from just the existence of a fertile male and female.

Additionally, enforcing any birth has the potential for great suffering in case the care is not done well. So if you force a mother to give birth, then the child will suffer if that mother is unable to provide, if the father is abusive, if their finances break down, etc.

If we cannot determine this (what can suffer) exactly, i circle back to empowering the person that has direct consequences. If a hard choice is to be made, taking it out of this persons hand is oppression in my view. The unborn is not able to weigh in, it cannot comprehend or communicate.

Side node: A problem i have (ethically) with reproduction is that it is always without consent.

It is impossible to ask a child-to-be if it wants to be born, and when that becomes possible, it is too late.
So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?

Public

Notices where this attachment appears