Blue Pill Red Pill Blue Pill Red Pill

[criss]

"Following 10 years of development, the "eternal happiness" plan is ready to begin.

All humans will be hooked up to a system which will allow them to live out the remainder of their natural lives, whilst being provided with a new drug that induces a perfect state of bliss, happiness and love within each person."

The consequences

a) "slow" extinction of the species (no re-population)
b) divine state of consciousness for all, for ever.

The instinctual reaction I had to this idea is "there is something truly horrific about this" and I still feel that. But I don't know why I feel that, because when I reason this idea out it seems to be the perfect end to the human experiment.

I take the position that pro-creation has no bearing on the "meaning" of life, as I find the idea of being a slave to Darwinism a bit depressing. I would also argue that we have no responsibility or duty to have children. (I wouldn't have lost out on anything had I not been conceived, as I wouldn't have existed to perceive that loss).

I appreciate that there is something very wrong about this idea, but I can't put my finger on it, so if anyone can articulate that then please step forward!

Reputation Comments on this post:

Fascinating

[~lostgurl~]

Where did you read this? Interesting topic/idea!

[Lethargy]

We feel that the Essence of Humanity lies within its Dissatisfaction, and therefore its ability to Grow. Reproduction as it stands exists only until we can figure out a way to preserve the species while evolving without reproducing. Something we will probably have to wait quite some time to see. We feel that a "divine state of consciousness" may result eventually from our Human Experiment but that if/when such arises we will splinter off Reality into another Universe and just Start Over.

Eternity bothers us. In "heaven" nobody grows, changes, nothing new happens. We enjoy New Things. Thus the idea seems monstrous to us as well. If the Universe wanted Stasis then Chaos would have never taken Root. We've drawn these conclusions from our somewhat limited experience though, and as with all Metaphysical Positions we take them only until we decide we Like Someplace Else Better.

Fascinating Subject, and One Which We Have Thought Much Upon.

[Euthanatos93420]

As a Nietzcheist I would gladly respond. I would agree there is no obligation to children that do not, nor will, exist. The obligation lies toward the children that do exist, even if they are not one's own. For in a sense all children are our children. Their care, saftey, and love is the responsibility of all.

What you speak of is genocide. While, in one hand if all would agree that this is the best conclusion to the human race and are willing participants to it's end, then there would be no 'moral' arguments. This idea gains plausability for its tranquil nature versus the Atomic Genocide we are all so familiar with. The only argument that stand is that never would every person in the world wholeheartedly agree. Nor would a majority, or a political power hold enough sway against a rebellion to enforce such. Only genocide by violence would ever occur. It is instinctive to procreate. Only intelligence counters this.

My personal favorite exploration of this possibility is Dr. Strangelove. RIP Stanley Kubrik.

As for the tail end of that point, we come to de-evolution which you can google for an in-depth understand of the theory and co-linear (de)-evolution. Or you can watch Idiocracy. Which I recommend even and especially if you understand the theories. Fuckin' hilarious idea...rediculous exaggeration of what is true today.