Not in a scientific manner. Perhaps in a purely logical manner sure but it is not science and can not be applied to others.

Evidence but a sample size of one is not scientific evidence.

There is 0 scientific indication of consciousness existing at all. I am not making an empirical argument but a logical one.

We have consciousness because all computation has it, imo consciousness existing only makes sense if it is a fundamental aspect of the universe. Basically consciousness and computation are one and the same.

Consciousness wasn't evolved. It is one and the same with computation.

Yes it would be. Ultimatly all morals are subjective. I just happne to be a positive utilitarian.

It doesn't matter if their existence is pain or not they still desire to exist. It's called persevering, something you know little of.

I didn't say that most people didn't act to end themselves I said that most prefer to exist, which remains true accounting for social factors.

Ofc one would mind, by definition if you are suffering you don't like it. Just as if you are happy you wouldn't want to not exist.

What individual humans for themselves is irrelevant for what we should have for everyone.

False simply by the fact that most people prefer existence.

The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

Oh but it is a moral obligation. These are both subjective and thus equally weighted.

Happy people lose a happy existence. I could use that same argument against a lack fo suffering. A person suffering who stops existing is neutral because at the end there is no one to experience the lack of suffering.

Your logic is like this, 2 happiness becomes 0 which is nothing thus neutral. I can do the same with suffering 2 suffering becomes 0 which is nothing thus neutral.

That is perfectly acceptable.

Yes they can. If happy people are not born it is not ok. Since that means there could have been more happiness but there wasn't. We want more happiness to exist in the universe, that is a good thing.

Seek therapy.

On what basis can you claim the latter and reject the former.

You are clearly depressed and should seek therapy. Most people heavily prefer to exist. You have a stagnant would view where you only see constant suffering in the world when in reality everyone is working towards a better future. Your entire ideology relies on the idea that lack of happiness is neutral because there is no one there to experience it and a lack of suffering is good. That is fundamentally wrong because someone who was happy disappearing is just as bad as someone suffering disappearing. Just like the person will not be able to experience not being happy the person will not be able to experience not suffering.

Why does that logic not hold? Why does the right to not suffer outweighs the right to be happy? You can make that logic because happiness is valuable and a lack of happiness is bad. The value of happiness is not dependent on someone being there to experience it but is valuable on its own.

Your view that suffering outweighs happiness is complelty unfounded with no evidence nor logic behind it. Most people desire to exist, that is a fact that you need to deal with. You and your fellow antinatalists are simply projecting your own issues upon the rest of a world that is ok with existence.

You don't. Bears are an important part of market competition.

gpu

Never heard of artifical habitats, terraforming, O'Neil cylinders? It is perfectly possible for us to live in space. There isn't a single reason why we couldn't.

Lol, how boring it must be to be as unimaginative and dumb as yourself.

The universe is more than large enough to satisfy utopia for that many people or more.

You need not make your ignorance so obvious.

If you know nothing of socialism if you think economics has nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with it.