• In total there are 10 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 10 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Promortalism by Gontlemang General-Segolodi

This forum is devoted to conversations about your favorite NON-FICTION authors, books, and genres.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Thomas Michaelson
Official Newbie!
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2024 12:56 pm
Gender:
United States of America

Promortalism by Gontlemang General-Segolodi

Unread post

Considering its controversial subject matter, it is not for the faint hearted. However, if you have an open mind, you might find it very fascinating & thought provoking.
The book is an exploration of 2 unique philosophies that support total extinction, namely existential antinatalism (the idea that procreation is illogical) & existential promortalism (the idea that it is logical for any mortal living being to die as soon as possible).

I should start by differentiating existential antinatalism/promortalism from contemporary antinatalism/promortalism. The latter 2 are against procreation & continued living respectively, but on the basis of ethics/morality. Ethics/morality is a completely fictitious concept & this can be easily proven.

Firstly, David Hume’s “is-ought” gap can be solved, but the solution has nothing to do with morality. It can only be solved by determinism/causation e.g a ball that is held up in the air is let go. What ought to happen? It ought to fall down. The, “is” statement is the fact that the ball has been let go and the, “ought” statement is the fact that it must fall down. I state that morality is fictitious because it fails to solve what I call the, “ought-ought” gap. Since deriving an, “ought” from an, “is” has nothing to do with morality, the only other option to try & prove moral realism is to try to derive an, “ought” from another, “ought”. Unfortunately, this is impossible, because it results in an infinite regress of, “ought” statements. E.g If you try to justify, “ought” claim-1 with, “ought” claim-2, you are implying that, “ought” claim-1 requires justification, because it is an, “ought” claim. This further implies that, “ought” claim-2 requires justification as well. Attempting to do so with an, “ought” claim-3 results in the same problem, leading to an infinite regress of, unjustifiable, “ought” claims.

It argues in favor of both, with 3 arguments.

The first is called the argument from unnecessary complexity. It states that in the world there exist living things and non living things & both serve the same purpose, which is obedience of the laws of physics. However, the non living things can do this job by themselves, meaning that the existence of living things adds unnecessary complexity to the world. Thus, it is more logical to make the world simpler by removing the already existing living things & not bringing more new ones.

The second is called the argument from a lack of purpose. It states that it is impossible to prove that a living organism must continue living or that it must create new life, since this would amount to a moral claim & morality is a fictitious concept. As such, it is illogical to do something that you have no obligation to do. One could argue that there is no moral obligation to be dead either so being dead is illogical. This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.

The third is called the argument from a universal solution. Know life, know problems. No life, no problems. It states that every living thing has to solve problems. The word, “problems” here, is used in a general sense, to refer to having desires. To have a desire simply means to want something. The nature of the desire, doesn’t matter. It could be anything, no matter how big (wanting to run for president) or small (wanting to go to the toilet). This argument states that it is illogical to create offspring who will have desires, since they did not need or want anything before they were born. It goes on to state that death is the most logical reaction to having any desires, because death gets rid of desires themselves. Consider for example, the fact that humans need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you instead die, you would permanently, no longer even need to eat. On a larger scale, rather than governments spending huge amounts of money & effort on agriculture, it would instead be a more sensible action to organize a total genocide, to avoid the need for food production.

I would give it a 4/5 rating. Definitely one of the most interesting books I have ever seen & certainly worth a read.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Promortalism by Gontlemang General-Segolodi

Unread post

Don't think I've ever seen a trailer for a book before. (Link at last word in previous post.)
Here's a link at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/PROMORTALISM-Stu ... B0CR45WFSK
And here's a direct download link: https://gontlemang.simdif.com/
There are censored and uncensored versions? Why? :shock:

This is a pro-extinctionist philosophy? Although "fun" is not necessarily the goal of reading a book, this one sounds like no fun at all and potentially extremely annoying... :P

Oh my goodness, he wrote a previous book with this cheery title.

Procreation Is Murder: The Case for Voluntary Human Extinction

Unless he's a psychopath, Gontlemang General-Segolodi sounds like a hoot! Let's invite him to our next party! :no: :weep:
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Promortalism by Gontlemang General-Segolodi

Unread post

:lol:
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Promortalism by Gontlemang General-Segolodi

Unread post

Not sure what to make of this strange video except it appears that in addition to advocating for the elimination of all life, Gontlemang General-Segolodi is an unrepentant pedophile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMi3UCQAqDU

Dunno why I decided to take a 2nd look at the "arguments" in the original post, but they are about as logical as a pebble.
Thus, it is more logical to make the world simpler by removing the already existing living things & not bringing more new ones.
That is so antiseptic it would make Thanos envious.
This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.
Dead things certainly do exist. Their bodies decay and nourish others, obviously still existing in the physical universe.
Consider for example, the fact that humans need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you instead die, you would permanently, no longer even need to eat.
Why hasn't the author shown the courage to lead by example in this endeavor? :hmm:
He's sounding more and more like the life of the party. :?
Post Reply

Return to “Non-Fiction General Discussion”