Consent and Antinatalism

Author: Kaitlyn
Philosophy
Antinatalism
consent
childfree
efilism

Posts

Total: 61
Topic's author
#1
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
Most people don't seem to think about consent in regards to childbirth, but it's quite a serious issue.

Everyone who was ever born did not give consent to be alive. 

The largest issue with this is that if someone has a miserable life, perhaps even ending up killing themselves and regretting the whole ordeal, that would not only be: 1) a bad life, but 2) one that was imposed upon them. There are many variations of bad lives, too: toddlers getting cancer and dying at the age of 4, double amputation required at the 7 leading to death, being abandoned by both parents and being bashed every day by adopted parents etc. In short, there are plenty of lives we can look at and say, 'that wouldn't be a desirable life to live at all', and this is made worse by the fact that this life was forced upon them without consent.

It's also ethically dubious to bring people into existence, even if their life ends up being great. The ethical problem is that a great life isn't guaranteed, whereas suffering is. So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent, and winning the gamble. 

Even in it's simplest form, bringing people into existence is done without consent, so there is that issue, too.

I haven't ever seen a coherent, logically constructed argument that addresses this large ethical issue. I would love to read what people think.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
Species survival negates ethics.

Notwithstanding  the indecision of the unconceived.


Perhaps something greater decides.
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,546
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Are you saying that the consent framework is flawed because people cannot consent to be born, which inevitably results in us placing other people in the position of imposed suffering that they never consented to, therefore making it logically impossible not to use other people's bodies without consent?

Awkward, most awkward.
Topic's author
#4
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Species survival negates ethics.
You haven't shown this at all.

Why must the human species survive?

Perhaps something greater decides.
Yeah and "perhaps" many sticks of fairy floss and games of Monopoly await us after death.
Topic's author
#5
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Are you saying that the consent framework is flawed because people cannot consent to be born, which inevitably results in us placing other people in the position of imposed suffering that they never consented to, therefore making it logically impossible not to use other people's bodies without consent?
Yes.

Awkward, most awkward.
What exactly are you saying here?
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent
There is no person before existence, and without a person there is no applicable concept of consent.

It may be immoral to create a person knowing they will inevitably suffer in unusual ways but not due to a lack of consent.
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Kaitlyn

You know that it is Rabbi  zedvictor4, don't  you?
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Kaitlyn

Oh, and it is Jedi ebuc.
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Kaitlyn

And it is Imam Greyparrot.
#10
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
As someone who has forgot almost everything he has learned from philosophy classes a year back, I think this is an argument against anti-abortion pro-life.


Topic's author
#11
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent
There is no person before existence, and without a person there is no applicable concept of consent.
If a potential harm to a human is about to occur, then consent is required. Since bringing sentient beings into existence is a potential harm, then consent is required.

I don't think the initial non-existence matters here. Whether consent can be given or not doesn't necessarily determine whether consent was given (which is what is important -- that's what helps us deal with potential harm in an ethical way), and thus it doesn't matter whether consent can be given. 

#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
You haven't shown this at all.
It's been showing itself for 300000 years or more.


And as far as I am aware disassembly follows death.


Purposeful creation which is not necessarily dependant upon a MANGOD, would suggest a greater purpose. In which humanity might be significant.

And chance creation would suggest a sequence of events with no purpose, in which humanity would be insignificant.

Or  perhaps everything has existed forever......(But for some reason material evolution kicked off comparatively recently)


Take your pick.

Though material development does seem sequential and purposeful with or without a MANGOD.......Doesn't it?


Nonetheless, consent came to mean a female saying yes.

Was the egg hers to give up for fertilization?
Topic's author
#13
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You haven't shown this at all.
It's been showing itself for 300000 years or more.
This is the naturalistic fallacy wherein you assume that because something happens biologically, it must be ethically justified. It is not logically valid.

And as far as I am aware disassembly follows death.
I don't see how this relates to consent or antinatalism.

In which humanity might be significant.
Even if humanity was "significant" in the grand scheme of things, how does this affect the consent issue in regards to antinatalism?

Though material development does seem sequential and purposeful with or without a MANGOD.......Doesn't it?
No.

Nonetheless, consent came to mean a female saying yes.

Was the egg hers to give up for fertilization?
This isn't relevant to the thread's topic.
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
You're thread is very fine.

And philosophically narrow, which seems contradictory to philosophy.


So how would you presume to gain consent.

As I suggested, consent occurs at conception.

And ethics are made up stuff, and are certainly not logically valid within the context of naturalism.....or are they.

In fact one would perhaps argue that everything that occurs within a universe  is logical and natural and therefore not fallacious.

And therefore also relative.



And a definite "No" there, which must be indicative of something.

Would you care to elaborate?
Topic's author
#15
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And philosophically narrow, which seems contradictory to philosophy.
The thread is about consent and antinatalism, not whether a woman own her eggs before fertilization, and not whether disassembly follows death.

So how would you presume to gain consent.
You can't gain consent from people that don't exist -- that's one of my obvious points.

As I suggested, consent occurs at conception.
We're talking about consent from the person brought into existence, not the consent to have sex. Clearly, once an egg is fertilized, it becomes a distinct biological entity to the mother.

And ethics are made up stuff, and are certainly not logically valid within the context of naturalism.....or are they.
I'm making the case that bringing people into existence, which can certainly cause harm to them, is done without consent and therefore ethically dubious. Everyone on the planet doesn't want harm to them, so that premise isn't made up at all. Not wanting people to be subject to harm they didn't consent to seems like a reasonable, ethical stance for people who have done nothing wrong. What exactly is being "made up?"

In fact one would perhaps argue that everything that occurs within a universe  is logical and natural and therefore not fallacious.

And therefore also relative.
I'm demonstrating in this thread how what is natural (i.e. childbirth) causes major ethical issues. It's illogical to bring people into existence if you don't want them to be harmed, unless you don't care about gratuitous harm. It's also a major problem that these people are not consenting to this harm, because the consent could make the harm justifiable (e.g. a pre-agreed to boxing match).

There's no relativity involved when it comes to suffering/pain/negative affect experienced by humans: no one wants it.

And a definite "No" there, which must be indicative of something.

Would you care to elaborate?
I don't see any sequence or purpose to the universe. I don't think the universe needs humans to exist, and I think humans are the ones generating purpose out of biological urges. The sequence is just a bunch of random chemical reactions.

There's nothing to suggest otherwise, as far as I can see.
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent
There is no person before existence, and without a person there is no applicable concept of consent.
If a potential harm to a human is about to occur, then consent is required. Since bringing sentient beings into existence is a potential harm, then consent is required.

I don't think the initial non-existence matters here. Whether consent can be given or not doesn't necessarily determine whether consent was given (which is what is important -- that's what helps us deal with potential harm in an ethical way), and thus it doesn't matter whether consent can be given. 
It does matter if consent can't be given because no free will exists to give it vs unable to get consent due to inability to communicate (like knocking on a door and no one answers so you assume you can repaint the house).

Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.

No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.

So you are operating under an incorrect theory that "consent" is fundamentally some kind of bandaid to make potential harm due to an interaction acceptable. It acts that way under the right circumstances but that is not why it matters or exists.
#17
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Antinatalist sentiments, in fact, can be found throughout history, and they even appear throughout Scripture. Both Jeremiah and Job curse the day they were born, and the author of Ecclesiastes—when considering the eternal fact of humans oppressing other humans—judges that the one who is never born to see such things is better off than both the oppressor and the oppressed (4:3). The novelty of antinatalism, therefore, lies not in the feelings and ideas it expresses but in its more recent philosophical expansion (as in the work of David Benatar) and its growth as a movement.
#18
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
Most people don't seem to think about consent in regards to childbirth, but it's quite a serious issue.

Everyone who was ever born did not give consent to be alive. 

The largest issue with this is that if someone has a miserable life, perhaps even ending up killing themselves and regretting the whole ordeal, that would not only be: 1) a bad life, but 2) one that was imposed upon them. There are many variations of bad lives, too: toddlers getting cancer and dying at the age of 4, double amputation required at the 7 leading to death, being abandoned by both parents and being bashed every day by adopted parents etc. In short, there are plenty of lives we can look at and say, 'that wouldn't be a desirable life to live at all', and this is made worse by the fact that this life was forced upon them without consent.

It's also ethically dubious to bring people into existence, even if their life ends up being great. The ethical problem is that a great life isn't guaranteed, whereas suffering is. So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent, and winning the gamble. 

Even in it's simplest form, bringing people into existence is done without consent, so there is that issue, too.

I haven't ever seen a coherent, logically constructed argument that addresses this large ethical issue. I would love to read what people think.
It's not logically coherent to expect an entity to give consent prior to coming into existence. 
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
The growth as a movement.

Grows and moves because there are people growing and moving who grow and move it.

Which must tell you something about it.


If antinatalism was a seriously popular movement.

The human population would rapidly decline and perhaps become extinct.

Which should tell you something about human nature.

And must also tell you something about the futility of absurd philosophy.


David Benatar has to pay the bills somehow, I suppose.

And I also suppose that sitting around thinking up nonsense for a living, is somewhat easier than working for it.
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
If you accept existence, then everything is relative.

Pleasure pain and the innate, for starters.



So, what is your take on material evolution then Kaitlyn.

So why isn't fundamental matter still in it's primal state.

And why are human beings now developing Alternative Intelligence.....Or alternative data management systems, if you prefer.

Though any form of data management system must have the ability to develop.


So what I'm asking relative to the thread, is why do we do what we do, rather than the opposite.

Though some might point out that currently in some sub-societies, there is a slight move away from traditional sexuality.

But I don't think that this could be described as antinatalism.....Females are still driven to conceive....Even if social trend dictates less frequently.


I would suggest that we are driven to procreate, and that existence and suffering are ethically necessary for a reason.

The reason being, material evolution.

Topic's author
#21
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It does matter if consent can't be given because no free will exists to give it vs unable to get consent due to inability to communicate (like knocking on a door and no one answers so you assume you can repaint the house).
It's possible to wrong someone (morally/ethically) without them and/or you having free will. Therefore, whether there is free will (or, more specifically, the ability to consent) involved doesn't matter. What matters is whether consent was given, not whether it could be given, in order to negate a potential wrong (e.g. punching someone is wrong (no consent), but punching someone is a boxing match is fine (consent)).

With the knocking on the door, we already know there will be no answer (parallel: before birth) -- everyone agrees with that, so there's no point on knocking on the door. We also know that if you decide to "repaint the house", someone will eventually be there (parallel: birth), so we have to be careful with how we "repaint the house". What I'm arguing is that when you "repaint the house", there is a wide range of severe consequences that can result, all of which you can't predict. You don't get to pick the color or the effect it has. Yellow might cause the local biker gang to come and smash up the house (parallel: cancer at the age of 4). Black might allow future renovators to care about the house more because it looks nice (parallel: a long and prosperous life with few struggles). Green might invoke squatters to sneak in and stay in the lesser used parts (parallel: work colleagues ruin multiple promotion opportunities at multiple companies, of which makes you quit and fail to find another great job ever again). 

Without the consent, repainting houses is a massive gamble that can lead to some pretty horrendous outcomes. With the consent, repainting houses becomes morally/ethically acceptable.

Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.

No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.
Imagine the tree gains sentience during your climb (and also that you do the climb blindfolded -- much like we can't see who will be birthed before they are). Some big trees won't feel anything and will be fine, and perhaps they might even enjoy the climb as back-scratching or tickling. Some smaller trees may warp a bit under your weight, causing them a fair amount of suffering. Other smaller trees might snap in half and die horribly. 

You don't know how much pain/suffering/discomfit you are going to cause the tree beforehand (because you are blindfolded). You don't know whether your climb is too heavy for the tree. You just do it blind with dire consequences at stake. 

We can also take an extreme example of someone who is unconscious after a serious motorcycle accident and has no legal guardian/spokesperson to speak for his/her best interests. This person is unable to consent, both literally and legally. This person will simply die if nothing is done. If we apply your logic of "can't consent" and "no discerning will to contradict", we could justify bashing this person to death, or putting him/her atop a large waterslide just to see how he/she would ragdoll down? Does that seem reasonable to you? 

So you are operating under an incorrect theory that "consent" is fundamentally some kind of bandaid to make potential harm due to an interaction acceptable. It acts that way under the right circumstances but that is not why it matters or exists.
Yes, it acts that way under the right circumstances. 

I think if you laid the risks of life out to people before they were born, and they said,' yes, this is all fine', then giving birth to them would be morally a-okay.
Topic's author
#22
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
If you accept existence, then everything is relative.

Pleasure pain and the innate, for starters.
Please and pain are not relative, but our qualitative language is unable to measure it with a consistent metric at this moment in time, so it seems that way.

[...]

I would suggest that we are driven to procreate, and that existence and suffering are ethically necessary for a reason.

The reason being, material evolution.
Humans don't agree that suffering is necessary, elsewise they wouldn't attempt to escape it every time they encounter. The only time they willingly seek suffering is when it will limit future suffering (so they're trying to avoid the most suffering), and embracing that necessary harm is a function of material evolution that doesn't give a damn about our contentment with life.

Material evolution resulted in a lot of carnage that it was indifferent to and will continue to be indifferent to. It doesn't care if 1,000,000,000s of sentient creatures suffer immensely, or if 1,000,000,000s more suffer in the future. It's survival of the fittest; everything else be damned. Humans are driven to procreate but they're not at all wired by default to think about the risks, harms or consequences involved, and that's by design -- unintelligent design. Survival of the fittest; everything else be damned. It takes a dispassionate, logical mind to start questioning whether it's a good idea to bring more people into existence, and since most creatures are caught up in their own survival, most never get the chance to think.

Existence isn't necessary, either. The universe doesn't need us to exist. If the world exploded tomorrow, there would be no one left to need or miss us.

We need to have a serious examination of whether life is worth imposing upon more people, not just assume that it is because our biology does it automatically.
Topic's author
#23
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
The novelty of antinatalism, therefore, lies not in the feelings and ideas it expresses but in its more recent philosophical expansion (as in the work of David Benatar) and its growth as a movement.
Benatar's argument is really, really tough to counter. He's clearly thought it through thoroughly. Even very smart and industrious people like Jordan Petersen struggle to fully comprehend some of the core arguments of antinatalism, let alone begin to debunk them: Jordan B Peterson & David Benatar - YouTube

Petersen actually came quite close to championing what I consider to be one of the few counterarguments to Benatar's antinatalism, and that was when he argued that suffering and pleasure have not been fully quantified and compared (Benatar does have a response to this: we only need estimate to see the gap, to which Petersen couldn't countenance). 

But I agree. It's the recent expansion that has brought novel, powerful arguments that I think need to be addressed.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
The point I am making is:

Whether or not humans do or don't agree is perhaps irrelevant.

Though I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Humans can or cannot agree with universal necessity"

I'm suggesting that necessity exceeds human validation.

So as an advanced intellectual species we may have loosely concluded that human suffering is not such a good thing.

Even so we still have the ability to turn a blind eye, when human necessity dictates.


As for the relativity of everything.

To suggest that everything isn't relative is a tad ridiculous.

Perhaps you hold the notion that as a human you are separate to everything.


I would suggest that human importance resides within the very fragile and tenuous bubble of human importance.


"Existence isn't necessary".

Is a sweeping statement.

Existence of what?

Can you prove that the existence of a progressive universe is unnecessary.


All that I can say, is that existence might or might not be necessary.

And I would have to apply this to everything.




Topic's author
#25
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
The point I am making is:

Whether or not humans do or don't agree is perhaps irrelevant.

Though I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Humans can or cannot agree with universal necessity"

I'm suggesting that necessity exceeds human validation.

So as an advanced intellectual species we may have loosely concluded that human suffering is not such a good thing.

Even so we still have the ability to turn a blind eye, when human necessity dictates.
I came to the conclusion that 'humans agree that pain/suffering/discomfit is universal' through looking at their behavior and words. There isn't a person on the planet who actively seeks these as a good in itself. They only ever seek them to avoid future, bigger pain/suffering/discomfit. 

Some smarter people may realize that there are instances wherein pain is unavoidable, and thus becomes necessary in that sense (i.e. pick the lesser of all pains). But that's a 'less bad' case scenario, rather than a truly good one. A truly good one would be where no pain needs to be experienced. Thus, we should be looking at ways to remove pain altogether (perhaps through antinatalism). 

As for the relativity of everything.

To suggest that everything isn't relative is a tad ridiculous.

Perhaps you hold the notion that as a human you are separate to everything.
Humans aren't separate to everything, but you can isolate things to measure them, in order to derive some objectivity.

For example, you can measure the volume of liquid in a beaker, and then use numbers and a measuring unit to determine an objective value for humans to observe. 

I'm saying that we might be able to perform a similar measurement with pain/pleasure in the future. Being able to measure something in isolation doesn't mean it's totally separate to everything in the world.

I would suggest that human importance resides within the very fragile and tenuous bubble of human importance.
I agree but the topic really doesn't involve this.

"Existence isn't necessary".

Is a sweeping statement.

Existence of what?

Can you prove that the existence of a progressive universe is unnecessary.
The existence of humans.

There is no reason to assume human existence is necessary. That's why I believe that human existence isn't necessary.
#26
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Hey Do ya reckon us ummmm,  modern day Humans could become extinct if we tried  ? 
 
I doubt it. 

Also.
You can do what it takes to make a baby . ( thats the sex thing )   And no baby occurs., 
You can do it again.  
And again. 
And then on like the 10th time or 100th time, a bay bay happens. 
This fact HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 

So like. 
There is planed pregnancies and unplanned pregnancies. 
Do these " facts " have any weight in these discussions. ? 
They should hey,  butttttttttt they don't do they. 
It sounds silly having to word it like that but they don't.  

A quick.  ●●●●●●●●  《  REMINDER   》 ●●●●●●●●●    guys. 
UP the bum =  No babies.  


#27
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Oh darn it .
Did I just type that out loud ? 

Well let me continue. 
WHAT If you get a REAL REAL FUCKING HOT , SEXY LOOKING CHICK  PREGNANT. 
LIKE A 9 OUT OF 10 kind of women. 
A model. 

Into.

Hey What if ya do a pig in the park down the road and get her preggasss.  ( as we've all done this right guys. ) 
Guys? 
As we've alllll done right. ?
Like  A fat ugly chick .  
You know. 
The ones You do  in the park down the road so ya mates don't find out. 
Right guys ?  
' Hi fucking 5 '

So ummmm yeah .
Just a couple of Things to take into consideration.  
Becauseeeeeeeeee  You know men hey?
Guys. 
We here all no men hey ? 

Again.   Silly worded buttttttttt , has to be added to the consideration files. 

Im not asking if its moral or immoral to root a fat chick.
Im just .
Well.




Pass.
Topic's author
#28
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hey Do ya reckon us ummmm,  modern day Humans could become extinct if we tried  ? 
 
I doubt it. 
You don't think there is enough nuclear material on this planet to melt the Earth to its core, let alone wipe all living creatures off the planet?

You really doubt that?

#29
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Kaitlyn
Yeah i insta thought about that. 
Buttttttt
It is a close um call i think. 

Picture the start of the race to become extinct.  
Ok humans ready 

Set 

Starting frommmmmmmmmmmm 
And
Go. 

Then boommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  


Hey Know one has kill themselves with an atomic bomb have they. ? 
You wouldn't.
See even thats funny to think about. 

But seriously.
We've been here for what,  200,000 ish thou and we are ever so apex. 

Butttttttttttt. Someones always hiding in a bunker somewhere. "Factor" kicks in. 
 
Ps
Imagine dooms day prepers being smart.  
Actually. 
One day they will be smart. 

Doomsday being ...  no connection on me Samsung  interwebs device thigy 
#30
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I dare not mention there one day not being no Internet connection hey.
My bad.     
That will not ever happen kids. 
The internet is here to stay. 

No but We wouldn't work together..
In the race to become extinct game.