Re: "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 8:32:34=E2=80=AFAM UTC+2, Carpet Munchers wro=
te:
> On 6/16/2023 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:=20
> > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:14:25=E2=80=AFPM UTC+2, Rant & Sweaty wro=
te:=20
> >> On 6/15/2023 11:26 AM, Rupert wrote:=20
> >>> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:41:11=E2=80=AFPM UTC+2, Ran & Swat wr=
ote:=20
> >>>> On 6/4/2023 9:30 AM, Rupert wrote:=20
> >>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:03:58=E2=80=AFAM UTC+2, Rat & Swan w=
rote:=20
> >>>>>> Discuss.=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> Pretty fair to ask, really, what do you mean by saying that?=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> So okay sure we get your main point, that if you're considering a s=
ituation=20
> >>>>> where no actual animal exists and we merely have at most a "potenti=
al=20
> >>>>> animal", then there is no entity there that stands to "enjoy a bene=
fit" if=20
> >>>>> the "coming into existence" happens.=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> Then, on the other hand, if we contemplate an animal leading a comp=
letely=20
> >>>>> miserable existence, we may be tempted to think "Isn't it true to s=
ay that=20
> >>>>> is was a misfortune for that being to come into existence, and othe=
r things=20
> >>>>> equal those who were able to prevent it from happening if they had =
known=20
> >>>>> should have done so", then having gone that far, maybe we're tempte=
d to also=20
> >>>>> say "So it is at least somewhat reasonable to speak of happy beings=
 being=20
> >>>>> fortunate to have come into existence, whether or you not you talk =
about it=20
> >>>>> being in some way morally obligatory to bring such beings into exis=
tence if=20
> >>>>> you can, which is a separate issue". So you have that thought as we=
ll.=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> And of course I've shown you articles written by professional philo=
sophers=20
> >>>>> on this topic in the past, on which you've poured unmeasured scorn.=
 But=20
> >>>>> still, above I have outlined two thoughts that might be had on the =
topic,=20
> >>>>> one of which you probably endorse, and the other of which has at le=
ast some=20
> >>>>> initial plausibility about it.=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> And is there really anything more to be said? Do you think this is =
in some=20
> >>>>> way a question with an objective answer, perhaps an answer that is=
=20
> >>>>> immediately obvious to everyone more intelligent than David Harriso=
n, and=20
> >>>>> that you know this and you're doing a good public service by repeat=
edly=20
> >>>>> pointing this out?=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> Anyway. Your goal in writing this post is whatever it was, and you =
did say=20
> >>>>> "Discuss"... so... I've discussed a bit.=20
> >>>> I guess the mathematics thing didn't work out too well for you, eh?=
=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Was invited to speak at an on-line seminar held by University of Barc=
elona=20
> >>> because people liked my recent Philosophia Mathematica publication, s=
till=20
> >>> attending conferences, still research active, currently working on th=
ree=20
> >>> projects which if accepted as correct will have a lasting impact in t=
he field,=20
> >>> and two other papers in the pipeline as well. Have been advised by a =
friend=20
> >>> that I should be able to crack the UK academic job market if I stick =
with it.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> However, yeah sure, I am currently unaffiliated. I earn enough from m=
aths=20
> >>> tutoring at present to cover roughly 40% of my share of our basic hou=
sehold=20
> >>> expenses, and I also received a research grant to work on an AI safet=
y=20
> >>> project, nearly finished writing that one up, significant mathematics=
=20
> >>> component there, and we received enough money from that for me to be =
able to=20
> >>> say that from that alone I fully covered my share of our household ex=
penses=20
> >>> from start of August last year up till end of July.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> So yeah, going extremely well, thanks for asking. In good spirits.=20
> >> You didn't obtain a Ph.D in mathematics to be a math tutor to the unde=
rachieving=20
> >> children of rich fucks. You've never even been an assistant professor.=
 What=20
> >> happened to your tenure track aspirations? I think you have to be in y=
our=20
> >> fifties by now, or at least very close to age 50. For all of your impr=
essive=20
> >> achievement in obtaining a Ph.D in mathematics, what you have done sin=
ce then=20
> >> amounts to dilettantism =E2=80=94 basically, dabbling.=20
> >>=20
> >> Obtaining a Ph.D in mathematics: impressive. Dabbling and dilettantism=
 ever=20
> >> since: unimpressive. Age 50 +/- with a Ph.D and only covering 40% of h=
ousehold=20
> >> expenses: parasitism and sponging.=20
> >
> > I'm 47. I have obtained a PhD, yes, and I [snip long and tedious wheeze=
]=20
>=20
> God *damn*, woopie =E2=80=94 that was long and wasteful and *tedious* eve=
n by your=20
> fucked-up, wobbly standard.=20
>=20
> You have lived a wasted life, woopie. I'm sorry, but there's no other rea=
sonable=20
> conclusion. Ph.D in math(s), no professorship, tutoring the scholasticall=
y=20
> defective children of people with more money than sense...that's not exac=
tly a=20
> life, woopie.

As compared with failure to get PhD in economics, working in computer secto=
r, still helping his son through university?

I'm helping adult learners, by the way.=20

I don't really think this case you have made is a particularly compelling o=
ne; I find your statement rather absurd.