We've had this discussion before, and you brought it up yet again.
Have you forgotten ? Or do you remember and forgotten who you're dealing with ?
I haven't forgotten. You're repeatedly making the discussion about you personally when I'm sharing the ideas themselves. I'm not trying to turn your thread into some personal lesson about you. I'm explaining nihilism and moksha and reminding people that reproduction and the continuation of samsara aren't obligations. Suffering isn't merely an emotional state either; it can also mean the physical processes of deterioration, deprivation, injury, disease, and other forms of unideal existence. My point is that there is no necessity to reproduce and create another being subject to those conditions.
Well the ones who are obliged to procreate the most are women. The obligation will be decided by the people who have children. You jerk your meat, at least you get to enjoy something out of what you are in the flesh. You also get to stick your fingers in your anus. Yeah I know you produce semen. You're not obligated to stroke your meat though.
Suffering is instrumental to making of the better version of oneself. If for example you never had a cold, it will really suck the first time.
You fail to adapt. You have your head in the sand. All your suffering is the opportunity to bring forth the better version of yourself, and the better version of you is already there, you just choose to be a weak bitch. There are other people who've been where you are, and they carry on in better condition. As a reminder, I glad there was a man to beat my ass, driving the foolery away from me. Not everyone gets spoiled but there are those who spoil, and unprepared for the real world.
You're treating your own ability to benefit from adversity and operate within a system as evidence that the system itself is desirable or sustainable. Those are separate claims. You may have adapted to certain conditions and even benefited from particular consequences, but that doesn't establish that suffering inherently produces growth, that violence is a necessary form of learning, or that everyone can adapt to the same conditions. Some suffering produces lasting damage, disability, deprivation, disease, or death, which is the cessation of further growth.
You also tend to romanticize these processes instead of looking at the actual biological mechanisms involved. The brain doesn't have some universal process where suffering automatically makes it stronger. Different experiences can produce learning, adaptation, fear conditioning, chronic stress responses, impairment, or other outcomes depending on the circumstances and the individual. Medical treatment exists partly because preventing or treating biological damage can produce better outcomes than allowing someone to suffer and hoping the experience makes them stronger. Vaccination is an obvious example: it can produce immune memory without requiring someone to experience the full disease. Preventive medicine similarly attempts to stop biological problems before they cause unnecessary damage.
The same applies to the material conditions you seem to dismiss. Being capable of surviving or benefiting within a system doesn't mean growing inequality, wealth concentration, wage stagnation, resource constraints, poor working conditions, or other forms of deprivation cannot eventually undermine that system or your ability to benefit from it. Individual adaptation doesn't make systemic deterioration disappear. “I can benefit from this system” doesn't logically become “this system will continue benefiting me” or “this system is sustainable.”
This also matters for your argument about reproduction. A child potentially becoming strong enough to adapt to adversity doesn't establish that creating the child is justified. They cannot consent to being placed into those conditions, and there is no guarantee that what they encounter will merely be a useful challenge rather than severe deprivation, exploitation, illness, injury, or death. Not creating another person also means not creating another person who can develop diseases, sustain injuries, experience deprivation, or otherwise undergo the biological deterioration that necessarily accompanies life. It doesn't eliminate suffering from existing life, but it does avoid deliberately creating another participant in the process.
So the distinction is simple: adaptation to suffering is not proof that suffering is beneficial, surviving a system is not proof that the system is sustainable, and the possibility that a child could become strong through adversity is not a justification for creating that child. If your standard is actually human functioning, there is little reason to romanticize preventable suffering when medical treatment, prevention, and simply not creating additional vulnerable organisms can reduce it instead.
