We do know what M physically is because it's matter (it quite literally by definition "physically is". — Benj96

No, it's MASS, defined as:
Mass is the quantity of matter in a physical body. It is also a measure of the body's inertia, the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.

Mass is a property of its physicality. We can see the consequences of mass. We can see the manifestations of mass but we can't see mass. We can detect its affects such as gravity but we cant 'see' gravity either or know if its consequential or exists and is quantisable. The Higgs field may even identify the source of mass, but we still don't know exactly what it is. We can see an atom but not electrons or quarks. You might like this
Scientific American Article.

What is mass made of? The Higgs boson from the Higgs field? what does that look like?
Try:
The Higgs. Mexican hat shaped field! and:

The Higgs field is pivotal in generating the masses of quarks and charged leptons (through Yukawa coupling) and the W and Z gauge bosons (through the Higgs mechanism).

It is worth noting that the Higgs field does not "create" mass out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy), nor is the Higgs field responsible for the mass of all particles. For example, approximately 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron), is due instead to quantum chromodynamic binding energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of the massless gluons mediating the strong interaction inside the baryons. In Higgs-based theories, the property of "mass" is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact ("couple") with the Higgs field, which had contained that mass in the form of energy.

The underlined part above puts me into deadlock. To know what mass is, I have to know what energy is and to know what energy is I have to know what mass is, so I currently dont know what mass fundamentally is or energy. I can lsit the properties of the gold or the feather or the quark or the Mexican hat shape, but I still don't know what they ARE.

So based on your analysis of the pro's and con's involved with the use of anonymity, it seems to me that we need internet controls which are capable of catering benevolently to the current and prior status of each user. This was supposed to be the 'prime directive' in teaching. Your job was to progress each pupil/student based on their current and prior knowledge and skills. A lofty goal in my opinion but the correct one. I think we need to employ the internet in the same way. Remove all of it from private ownership, make it a completely free global resource.
A global authority should administer it but not own it.
Each country should 'pay'/'contribute' to develop and maintain it.
Then we would be at the stage of deciding, how each nation will decide, how they want to use the internet? and I think that the people who live in that nation must initially decide via debate and perhaps even referenda?
What do you think? How could we move forwards and make the internet become the fantastically positive tool it could be?
It seems to me that our systems have to cater to the individual needs of each human on the planet.
No 'one size fits all' system has ever worked or every human in its catchment area, in all of human history. Systems must be created which are capable of successfully catering to the need of each separate human that uses it. What do you think? Impossible to achieve?

Energy is equivalent to matter. "E=M" (x c^2) The only difference is a function of light speed. — Benj96

That's an equivalence, a balance. Like a ton of feathers and a ton of gold. I can see what makes feathers and gold different. Similarly in E=MC squared; I can see that it takes a great deal of energy to produce a little mass. Just like the bundle of feathers is physically much bigger than the bundle of gold but in E=MC squared, we don't know what E or M physically IS. We can't see the feathers or the gold.

A+B and A and B. One is a calculation and the other is a propositional logic question.
I don't see the value is equating + with 'and.'

Monism and dualism are opposites, so I am not sure what you mean by

I a cough out the word dualism/relativism again here. Because I think dualism trumps two opposimg monism. — Benj96

In coin tosses, two heads can't make a tail, two wrongs don't make a right, or am I totally missing your point here?

But as I've explained to you, energy is really just a product of our calculations, not something existing independently. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you stating this as a scientific fact? and if you are, can you give me references from experts in the field who have stated this as fact or are you just offering the statement above as a valid/convenient way to 'envisage or personally perceive' what energy is. Calculation/measurement can provide information about an instantaneous energy state, but it does not give much information as to what materialistically IS.
Perhaps we really would have to be able to 'see' a photon to better know what energy IS.
'Provides the ability to do work' falls short for most people.
If we really knew what energy IS, would we not have a better description of what a singularity actually is?
Science does not know what energy materialistically IS.
Any energy 'packet' or 'wave' or 'particle' or 'field excitation,' labelled photon or massless etc, are just convenient labels for observed or implied behaviour but none of these labels tells us what energy IS.
Would you agree that energy is material as opposed to immaterial?
Do you think that supernatural and immaterial are synonymous?
For you, if you think that the energy conservation laws are fundamentally incorrect then are you forced to also suggest that something must exist 'outside' of this universe or do you envisage some other way for energy to become 'non-existent' rather than 'changed form.'

:up: Thank you!

No Bartricks, before focusing on whether A is compatible with B, we need to determine what A and B mean. And this is a matter of truth, otherwise one will define A and B so that they either are, or are not compatible with each other, according to one's preference. In other words, one will make fictitious definitions of A and B to make them either compatible or not. And that is a pointless exercise. So we ought to proceed with determining the truth about A and B. — Metaphysician Undercover

:clap: Otherwise we have:
A = Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is dependent while material interactions are secondary.
B= Immaterialism is the philosophical position that there is no material world, and all that exists does so only in the mind and is for the mind. It is also the position that the supernatural has existence, i.e., ghosts, spirits.
Is A compatible with B? Imo, NO!
A and B = false

:scream: Perhaps why many decided to skip certain classes!

You mentioned 'bullying.' Anonymity is a big internet issue. Do you think you should be able to post anonymously? Should anonymity only be allowed when the possible response may be your own personal endangerment? But your full details are still held by the host site you are posting on?
Is it the responsibility of moderators to identify genuine threat towards a member whose id details are available and should they carry the responsibility of warning the person making the threats. Should there be a firmly established 'tick box' style set of global netiquette rules that will cause a mod to report you to the police?

These are serious problems we need to somehow address simultaneously if we want to maintain freedom of speech but protect the vulnerable at the same time — Benj96

You raise many valid points but we humans are as a totality, quite clever and we have many experts in the field of computing and electronic information systems. My own niece works in internet security.
There are many clever folks on TPF who have expertise in many fields. Surely we can travel a respectable distance by suggesting the basics of a system that could be employed on the internet which would give its users a positive, protected experience which enhanced their lives instead of having the current widely unpredictable effects it is having now.
No-one should be killing themselves as a direct result of their experiences on the internet.
Is a personal walled garden system a feasible way forward or even the beginnings of one?
If not, what controlled, secured individualised 'view' (if any) of the internet would YOU support?
Let's leave the issue of 'who' would create/enforce that 'personalised view' for now. Let's concentrate on the 'what' for now? 'What' would you include in an internet view/access for 5 to 12 years olds? or teenagers or '60+ years of age?'

I remember a system we employed with our secondary school pupils (aged 11-18)
Each pupil was given a network account and a passcode when they joined the school in S1.
This gave them access to nothing except internal school info.
As they attended each department, their teacher would give them access to the software and websites approved for that curriculum group, by adding their passcodes to a secured data file, which could only be accessed by the staff of that department.
Any special needs materials could also be accessed via secured permission data files.
A department or teacher could request access to another site (either temporarily or permanently) by going through a fixed process of 'why' the access was required, for how long and the site involved had to pass a list of general and subject specific criteria. This would then be passed to the senior management of the school for consideration at their weekly meetings.
It was basically a walled garden system, but it did work very well in the particular school setting I worked in. There were some issues related to pupils gaining access to other pupil's passcode etc but these were dealt with quite successfully.
Do you think we need such a tight system of control for the internet?
Would each country become like a department in my school system?
S6 pupils had a far wider walled garden than S1. Should it be the same for the internet?
Would it be the government via the ISP's who decide on what access for which individuals?
I think it's very necessary/interesting/important, perhaps even vital to debate the issue of the internet and the immense, perhaps even the most significant power there is on the planet today, which affect people's world viewpoints. BUT we really do all have to think about how this incredible power to influence people should be controlled/wielded.
Right now, it seems to me, that's its currently like a delivery system that can reach so many people so quickly that its power to spread positivity or negativity is equal in capability.
The fact that its power is currently underappreciated and uncontrolled and in the hands of a nefarious looking few is of great concern.

This is my last exchange to you on this topic. It's been most revealing. — EricH

Would you enjoy having bar tricks as one of your teachers?

That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties. — ssu

I disagree, as any pacts or groupings based on common cause would be terminated at every new election. No establishment of governmental groups such as the tory '1922 committee' in the UK, would be allowed to continue. New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. Any second chamber should be an elected citizen's chamber, representing social groups such as youth, the elderly, the disabled, the military, the police, medical, science etc.
Policies, laws should be based on bills introduced by any member of the government chamber and then should be debated by its members. Any law/government act, must be ratified by a majority from the second chamber.
We need a different politics or horrors like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc will always return to the main stage from time to time

How many items can you successfully juggle and for how long?
To balance censorship, personal freedom, mental state, age/experience, education level.
I think these 5 'juggle' items are not the only 'issue' items related to the censorship question.
I think it's very hard indeed to get the balance correct in all cases or even in a majority of cases.
Vera highlights some of the issues she is personally concerned about, and I think she (gender assumption based on name), would have a very large number of supporters, who share her concerns.
Ben types about 'balanced' arguments and I fully agree that would be nice to achieve during all human discourse. BUT it actually rarely happens in reality.
I think it's another one of those issues that we must always strive very hard to get right but will probably never get 100% correct every time. I agree with the viewpoint, that at the moment, based on all the crazy internet stuff that almost anyone can view, we are currently failing miserably, to protect vulnerable people online. The number of people, including very young folks who have harmed themselves or killed themselves due to what they have been exposed to or have encountered or have deliberately looked for online is quite horrifying.
I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of those whose main motivation is how much money they can make from internet social networking.
It seems a very difficult one to solve. My knee jerk solution would be some sort of 'global internet authority,' perhaps some globally accepted, United Nations type authority which could place people in some kind of 'walled garden' style system.
Your age, experience, education level, mental state etc would be used to decide which websites you are allowed to visit and who you are allowed to interact with online, but even as I type this, I object to my own idea?

How would YOU control access to online info? What methods would you use?
What actually works and is very hard to circumnavigate?
What would achieve the honourable goal of protecting the vulnerable?
It seems very dangerous and foolish to suggest that no controls at all, is the best we can do.

Is there any justification for censorship of any kind? — Vera Mont

This is the sentence I struggle with.
How extreme do we have to go in exemplification, before we start to think of who we don't want this information to be available to, as a free public resource. How about the following titles?

How to be a better criminal (100 tips to escape justice).
The terrorist/freedom fighters tool kit.
How to control people.
Best ways to kill yourself.
Why the white way is the right way.

Should these titles be available to everyone?
How about the illustrated, 5- to 10-year-old versions, with 20 built-in pop-up pages?
Is there a book or even a pamphlet title that for you, would be a step too far?

Such a cool name as well, considering the implications of her theorem.
Even cooler, if her middle name was thereis. Emmy Thereis Noether. :grin:
Award:

From a physics professor on Quora, Jess H Brewer, when responding to the question:
Does the law of conservation of energy always hold true?

His response was:
Locally and in the long run, yes. However,

1. Thanks to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (ΔEΔt≥ℏ/2), we can violate energy conservation over a very short time; that’s how fundamental forces can be mediated by the exchange of virtual particles in QFT.
2. In come circumstances (like near a black hole) the concept of a universal “now” doesn’t work — time passes at different rates at different distances from the black hole. So it becomes tricky to decide when to do the energy accounting for processes that bridge that gap.

For me, having read a lot of responses from physicists on places like Quora and the physics stack exchange on this question. If you consider the entire universe as a single system, including such structures as 'black holes' etc. There is nowhere for anything from this universe to go.
Everything since the beginning is based on combination of some number of fundamentals that science cannot fully confirm yet. Combination of these fundamentals create all that they can create over time. Entropy will disassemble systems back to the fundamentals over time. If this is true then conservation laws hold at the scale of the universe. For that not to be true, there would have to be something 'outside' of this universe and 'outside' of this universe seems absolute conjecture for now.

Don't worry about it, such can never be for you.

The antinatalist viewpoint is a weak jelly, in comparison with such people. Past, present and future.

Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread.

In Utero Enzyme-Replacement Therapy for Infantile-Onset Pompe’s Disease
— New England Journal of Medicine; Nov 9, 2022

Rare, deadly genetic disease successfully treated in utero for first time
— Avis Favaro; CTV; Nov 9, 2022

In a First, Doctors Treat a Fatal Genetic Disease Before Birth
— Jonel Aleccia; Time; Nov 10, 2022

Another one

I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here. — Tzeentch

Ok, enjoy analysing the feedback.

No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. — Tzeentch

Your choice.

In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.

All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for everyday conversation, but not for philosophy. — Tzeentch

I agree with your comments about the importance of the accuracy of language and I have the language skills I have. I have not found your use of language, demonstrates a higher skill level in accuracy that I have. I was a teacher of Computing Science for 30+ years. Philosophy has been around since we came out of the wilds, people philosophise in pubs, clubs and taxis as well as the Egyptian or Greek philosophers every did. I think you might gain more access to the thinking of a wider range of humans, if you stopped trying to paint such an aloof portrait of YOUR interpretation of what philosophy is and who is qualified to engage in it.

"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals. — Tzeentch

I think this example of your philosophy is shallow and rather misanthropic. Humans are quite capable of networking and thinking as one, close enough to act as one, in mimicry, of how a single mind might think and act and who knows what future networking level humans might achieve, as we enhance longevity and ability through transhuman technologies.

What makes you think I care? :chin:
I'm not here to convince anyone. — Tzeentch

Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives?

That's just dictated by logic. — Tzeentch

No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species.

Oh, that's rich.
Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime. — Tzeentch

I would, if I could get past you hogging all the available space in front of it, admiring yourself.

It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". — Tzeentch

Yes, they do, and they can, and do, use that intent to reproduce for many reasons, all of which serve the natural imperative of the survival of species. Your moral objection and the consent reason you give for it are not compelling. How many support your position on this thread so far? Maybe you should take a poll.

Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion. — Tzeentch

Perhaps you should make yourself clearer here. The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality.
The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. It is from that angle that I refer to the immorality you assign to your lineage of immoral parents, all the way back to the point where life formed in this universe. The logic of your 'blame game' fails miserably as you journey back along that path. In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency?

↪Moses Nothing you have said is correct. — Bartricks

:lol: It would be so cool if bar tricks was typing this to the original Moses! :rofl:
Perhaps as a disembodied booming voice from a burning bush.
Even better if he added 'and thy mother and father were immoral for engaging in procreation. Betrayers of the antinatalist way!'

YEAH, ok bar tricks, I will stop typing off OP, before a mod insists, I refer to the content of the OP only.

Strangely, I can listen to Leonard Cohen's voice much more than I can Dylan or Tom Waits.
Cohen was a phenomenal lyrics writer. But I think every cover version I have heard of his songs like 'hallelujah' or 'everybody knows' sounds better to me than when Leonard sings it, I still own his 'best of' albums.

Btw, I stole the combination of those three words 'Live, Love, Laugh, from a line in an Al Jolson song from 1926! This song was part of the legacy his life left to people alive almost a hundred years after he recorded this. A great wee song.

What's life without whimsy?
Without a wee giggle now and again, we could all turn antinatalist :scream:
Live, Love, Laugh Brother Ben!

:up: Nae bother. I'm not sure I am comparable with Gollum's ring of power and its evil source, Sauron. :joke: and you type too many balanced words obout life and living to be going around skinning cats by various methods! :scream:
If I don't agree with the mods, I sometimes send their favourite song lyrics to them along with a related picture:

We arra mods
We arra mods
We are, We are, We arra mods!

Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as @jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little.

If ye heid ra baw too much ye wull hurt yer heid too much.
Watch oot fur flyin baws, fings kin get a wee bit fishy!

PM one of the moderators and ask them. Sometimes your thread gets moved to somewhere else, like the lounge. Happened to my last thread here.

Procreation is an imposition. — Tzeentch

You get that I totally disagree with this, yes?

I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok. — Tzeentch

Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? You are not waiting for a logically coherent argument as to why this should be ok, as posters, including me, have already given you many. How about something like 'You have not found any of the logically coherent arguments presented to you so far, on this issue, compelling.' That would make you appear much less arrogant.

- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.
- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects. — Tzeentch

You removed the issue of human suffering from your flavour of antinatalism, so what is the imposition you are concerned about?
Your 'end justifies the means complaint,' suggests that the means is something bad and immoral, which is what we are debating, so you are merely attempting to label the process of human procreation as immoral from the outset, which reveals that your approach is bias from the outset.
You are judging every human couple who decides to have children as ego driven and vain and you want others to consider such an argument as rational and I don't think such a position is in any way rational or logical.
You are trying to give precedence to YOUR interpretation of human morality over billions of years of happenstance since the big bang. Which leads to what is, imo, an irrational antinatalist viewpoint.
Human reproduction has a natural imperative which is NOT ONLY to do with mere ego or personal vanity but is more importantly to continue a species and prevent it going extinct.
You can try to handwave that away as much as you like, but you will be, as you have been, unsuccessful.

Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least. — Tzeentch

Neither do you, you removed human suffering from your argument so the issue of individual well-being is not under consideration in your antinatalism flavour. YOU took it out. Your concern is about CONSENT (I capitalise here for the value of emphasis rather than as a rebellious act against common netiquette, so try not to feel attacked again, I know that can be a tender spot for you.)

The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. — Tzeentch

This comes across as a cold almost narcissistic viewpoint which I think very few human beings agree with. Most people do care about the future of their own species, regardless of their own oblivion.
This is not a logical argument, it is just a manifestation of your personal misanthropy.
(Btw: Analysis of the psychology of an interlocuter is common in probably all examples of human discourse.)

Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope. — Tzeentch

You are just repeating the same arguments over and over again and they dont get any better each time you repeat them. I can do that to, as you have probably noticed. Anyone can do that.
Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. Humans did not establish the natural imperative of species survival; they are simply compelled to comply with it. They can overrule it, yes, but there will be prices to pay, including extinction, if they employ something as destructive as antinatalism to their entire species.

The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition. — Tzeentch

Again, you just repeat, and I have already responded to the content of the quote above, many times. Others have even offered other varied logical angles against the logic you are employing, but you only respond by repeating your arguments and making very poor attempts to dispel the counter points put to you. That is irrational.

Only human beings are moral actors.

I hope that clears things up. — Tzeentch

Another restatement, which I have already given my opinion on. Shallow and arrogant!
No, but it has helped confirm and further exemplify your irrationality (not a personal insult, just an opinion on your brain fog regarding antinatalism).

IQ to you to!

I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game. — Tzeentch

Ok then state your position, clearly, now. You can't get the consent of a life not born yet, to be born. You have therefore suggested that the act of having a child is an unacceptable, immoral imposition on the child. You have proclaimed antinatalism as your imperative for solving this terrible injustice.

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so. — Tzeentch

I'm talking about the act of creating a child, which is an imposition upon the child. — Tzeentch

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

Now you refuse to admit to, take responsibility for, and follow the logic of your own argument. If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. No lifeform can obtain such consent, so, your 'no consent, so unacceptable imposition,' morality issue must apply to all life, Including the original appearance of life in this universe.
All you are doing now is trying to squirm away from following your own logic.

Humans are the only moral actors.
This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted. — Tzeentch

How shallow of you. Again, I recommend you read Carl Sagan's words about the great demotions.

Then why are you capitalizing every other word, — Tzeentch

How surprising? YOU, EXAGGERATING!

resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseuo-psychoanalyzing?
Those are not the actions of a calm person. — Tzeentch

I am responding to your illogical typings. You assign yourself too much personal significance.

That is not something I claim. — Tzeentch

Try to be clearer than mud in what you are claiming then.
Which forms of reproduction do you think are moral without the consent of the life which is created?

I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.
The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.
When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.
I'm discussing that moral question.
Maybe you need to calm down a little. — Tzeentch

Typed by the person who uses clown logic regularly. If no life reproduces then the universe would have no life. YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. BUT this must also refer to all unconsulted life Sherlock, or else YOU are cherry-picking, and you have already stated that you disapprove of cherry-picking.
The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, although you seem to not understand that would be the final result of your antinatalist stance.
The moral question you wish to discuss does not exist in the small bubble you are trying to push it into. Antinatalism in all of it's unpalatable flavours, has many implications for all life in this universe. Try to travel outside of your bubble musings now and again. You will encounter much more depth of thought if you do.
You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. Don't confuse my incredulity at your logic with any kind of emotive turbulence you imagine you are causing.

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?
— universeness

No. — Tzeentch

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats?

Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. — Tzeentch

So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe (as you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction) is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent?

Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not. — Tzeentch

Such issues are within the jurisdiction of 'human morality.' The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. That is the natural imperative you cannot reconcile with your fogged antinatalist thinking.
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?

Tom Waits — Janus

To me, he's like Bob Dylan, good lyrics, awful voice. :smile:

hard to figure out what motivates that boy... — Janus

Well, only his shrink knows that one, and perhaps the god(s) in his (since you suggested 'male' with your 'boy' label) head.

Not at all. You are unjustified and arguably incorrect in assuming that 'day' refers to a time period equivalent to one rotation of our planet or the period between one sunrise and the next. We have far less reason to make such a stupid assumption than we do to think that 'Earth' in the Genesis creation myth refers to our Earth. In fact given that the genesis of our existence, cosmically speaking, has always been something that invites philosophical and religious speculation, we have every reason to think the author of Genesis had precisely our world in mind. — Janus

Well, This suggests that the reporter of the Genesis fable was indeed a human who was familiar with the human invention of a 24h day. But how long would it take for a god to create a singularity? What was the 'had a rest' on the 7th day all about? An omni that needs a rest? What about time dilation? Were these 6 days based on an absolute universal time reference frame?
This universe continues to demonstrate change, it seems this creator was unable to 'finish the job,' and create a steady state universe which is not entropic.

This is just another of many bar tricks mad cap, attention seeking, threads that he/she/hesh needs to post to satisfy a need to type anonymous nonsense. I actually have no problem with his/her/hesh conjured supernatural omni, not being responsible for creating this universe. Atheists have been suggesting this universe has no god creator for years. Glad bar tricks wants to try, in his/her/hesh mad way, to help them in their cause
If the bizarre god characters bar tricks conjures in his/her/hesh mind, are too busy, involved on their own projects, not related to this universe or they/it is just 'hanging around,' as non-productive omnis, who had no responsibility for this world, and they don't exist anyway, then we can all simply ignore the OP and move to more interesting threads.

Are you okay?