Friday, 23 September 2011

A Theory of Procrastination

For the antinatalist, all options are bad. Life is a dreadful thing, full of pain and suffering. All he or she can do is attempt to minimise that pain and not pass on the burden by procreating. In conducting one’s life, therefore, one generally tries to determine which options carry the least risk of suffering. Hence in the mind of antinatalists the choices available are ranged thus:

A < B < C < D < E < F < G < H < I < J etc.

Where A is less painful than B, B less painful than C, C less than D and so on.

The logical choice, consequently, is to realise A. A’s value, such as it is, comes from it being the least of all evils. However, procrastination arises at the liminal point of realising A. The reason is as follows: although A has comparative value in being less painful than B, C etc., that value disintegrates if A is achieved and the other options dissolved. We are then left with only the reality of A, which in and of itself is a bad option, as all options and choices available for the antinatalist are a priori bad, and it is against all conditioning to choose a bad option. Hence procrastination.


  1. That's a very good observation, Karl!

    If you should give hundred (insert your favourite currency) for answering a question right, and four hundred (same currency) for answering it wrong, and two hundred for choosing not to answer, it becomes harder to decide if you want to try answering it.

  2. Yes. Hence procrastination. Right on!