I think one should also remember that wealth does not always lead to happiness — DA671

I don't recall suggesting it does.
All people should be able to take the basic means of survival for granted as all people should be equally valued. The rich/poor imbalance supports a power/influence imbalance that creates massive suffering and undeserved harm for a majority. Health care and education should be completely free for all from cradle to grave as the alternatives again cause great imbalance and a great deal of undeserved harm.
Antinatalists would be more than absolutely useless if they spent all their energy fighting against these undeserved harms than typing the utter nonsense they type. Good people are forced to waste their time typing the same truths in response to 'misguided' pointless threads such as this one.
It's very hard not to respond to horrible concepts like antinatalism. It deserves imo to be utterly ignored but I suppose as long as the antinatalists make their useless noises, good people will feel compelled to respond to them and If they ever gain the guts to identify themselves in public then I predict that the response they will get will not be as pleasant as it is on this anonymous forum.

P.S. Those who can provide for the well-being of their kids are only a handful of well-off folks and so, for simplicity's sake, they can be ignored, like δxδx, from the calculus. — Agent Smith

The whole of human society has responsibility for the well-being of all children and all people for that matter, not just parents. We need to remove the rich/poor imbalance from the human experience, which will help alleviate human suffering without turning to extremist, fringe, low-brow thinking such as antinatalism.

Better to play pinata. Swinging a big club blindfolded can cause harm but the intelligent pinata player can prod with the bat quite softly until they identify where the item filled with goodies is.
Then they can swing with strength and release all the goodies for everyone to enjoy (all part of a balanced food plan of course). People don't have to play nasty games such as the one you suggest.

No people, then no progress, no purpose, no new knowledge, no learning, no great new scientists/politicians/writers/Imagineers/entertainers/good decent people Nothing new and good. Even no vile antinatalists! (every cloud has a silver lining). Antinatalism is a cowardly solution to one of the best teachers we have, suffering.
The possibility of harm to others inspires all decent people to work hard to protect against such.
Every member on this website who has children that they love more than they value their own lives are being constantly insulted and accused of being immoral by misanthropic cowards who do not have the guts to make their statements face to face in public.
All the antinatalists here should organise into a public pressure group and show their faces on tv and the internet. Then their suggestions could be exposed to all and the public can react to them accordingly. Perhaps they will start a new global revolution and all procreation will stop. :rofl:

(B) find another (less incoherent) argument to "justify" their position or (C) concede that the idea is wholly subjective and be consistent enough to (i) refrain from procreating and/or (ii) kill themselves asap. — 180 Proof

:clap: :clap: :clap:

To each their own, sir! I just hope that the common good is kept in the minds of all — DA671

:up: I'm away to have a nice night of alcohol, fun, joy, happiness and good banter with friends. There will be a little suffering as well tomorrow morning. Worth it! I am sure my friends will be entertained as well when I tell them about the recent ravings from the antinatalists! Most of them have children so when I told them about the existence of antinatalism, they have stated that they would like to meet one of these antinatalists and see if they were brave enough to call them immoral for having the children they love, face to face.
I told them that In my opinion, they would be far too scared to do that.

In other words you, like me and most rational people think that the antinatalist solution is not only wrong, it is utter nonsense and ridiculous and vacuous. I could go on but I know you will prefer to stop at the word wrong and you may even want to reduce it to 'misguided but well-intentioned in its wink towards responsible population control.' Too much window dressing for my tastes I would rather call antinatalism what it truly is, insipid and vile.

it's just better that a world with sentient beings who can experience happiness exists rather than one without them. — DA671

Of course it is, The question would become what is the purpose of the universe without lifeforms that can ask questions? All the antinatalist will respond with is the typical Trumpian response to points that debunk their reasoning. They respond with 'that's not relevant to my OP.' I think they then go back to their corner insert their thumb into their favourite orifice and then just :cry: about all the human suffering that exists whilst probably making zero effort to help alleviate the suffering of anyone. They advocate the ridiculous solution of extinction!!!! :rofl:

Certainly. Some would say that the void would be absolutely valueless, whilst others would say that it would be impersonally bad due to what could have been. — DA671

Btw, I forgot to mention that a void is something not nothing you cannot infer such as 'impersonally bad' if there is nothing. You cant even label 'nothing' because there would be no ability to label.

Sometimes, the pertinent question is whether or not a wheel can be made bigger and better by adding more components. — DA671

A bigger hamster wheel for the AN crew could be good for them. More space for the runners and each rotation would take longer and keep them too busy to create boring, tedious threads like this one. The only value that can be garnished from this waste of everyone's time is the fact that the antinatalists have been exposed as vacuous!

We and the likes of us will always be here to welcome the newborns and do our best to help nurture and protect them while we watch the antinatalists run on their hamster wheels towards their own oblivion having lived lives where they were more useless to their fellow humans that they could have been if they had not surrendered to ridiculous miasma such as antinatalism.
As I said before, we are short of many wonderful creatures such as Pandas, Snow Leopards etc. they would be a much better use of base RNA and DNA compared to wasting it on antinatalists.

As a natalist, I cannot resist suggesting that something is better than nothing! — DA671

I would suggest that is down to your ability to be generally logical and pragmatic rather than originating from your support of responsible procreation. If the universe was not something then there would be nothing and we could not comment.

Like any rational person with epistemic humility, he has set his limits, which is admirable. — DA671

I see this more as his last hope. If he cant maintain at least that then he's a gonner!

universeness play the ball and not the man. — Down The Rabbit Hole

This is not sports, this is not a ball game!
You follow the antinatalists into their nonexistance if you wish, I for one will not go down that rabbit hole.

:strong: :smile: :up:

:up:
Even as an atheist, I respected and greatly valued the non-violent civil disobedience approach of the Mahatma. But the Nazis would have slaughtered him and all of his followers and would have taken India by force easily, if the wonderfully humble Mr Gandhi was running it during a Nazi invasion. Sometimes humility works but you need a lot more in your toolbox to deal with the nasties.

Humility has its place as long as you don't become a carpet that the nasties can just walk all over.
I hope that beneath all that humility you have a scary physical roar that the nefarious will clearly hear if they push you too far.

I mean, it's possible that not all do not care — DA671

I agree, it's possible!

he clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. — DA671

Yeah, you can get many examples of people who will only go so far with their dodgy ideas and no further, especially when they see the more extreme examples of their dogma in practice. BUT also we must be ever cautious as there are many strange bedfellows in the realpolitik. Do you remember how the Nazis murdered Ernst Roehm and many of his brownshirts. The nefarious will happily sacrifice their own to gain some overall advantage or stronger position.

Many genuinely seem to care about others — DA671

Yeah, in the same way as Donald Trump genuinely seemed to care about his followers. :lol:

should, however, mention that not all antinatalists say that they hate others. — DA671

What people say and what they feel inside can be very different. The antinatalists in the video clips you provided hate themselves and everyone else. The antinatalists on this thread express misanthropic, pessimistic, miserable viewpoints on life. Hate is a very strong word and whether or not a particular individual is more full of hate than any other emotion is only ever in the judgment of others.
I agree that nothing typed by the antinatalists on this thread warrant them being declared as hateful as the creatures in the two clips you posted but they are miserable misanthropes in my opinion and as you yourself stated:

but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while — DA671

I know that. That's because you are one of life's celebrants and you are not a miserable misanthrope like the antinatalist is.

The antinatalists are happy running around their hamster wheels. Let them run, don't engage their panto responses of 'oh yes it is.' The oh no it isn't group.' won the argument 20 pages ago. As soon as their argument has been debunked, they should get no more responses.
@DA671 provided evidence of what they become over time with the two clips he posted. The antinatalists here can either join with evil people like the horrors in those clips and they can then look forward to a future of being watched by the authorities or they can continue to make their useless and harmless white noise inside large empty vessels.
They don't reproduce and their arguments are easily debunked. They are thankfully on a path to the extinction of their own lineage.
They soon enter a mania of repeat, repeat, repeat no matter how many times they have been debunked.
They are miserable misanthropes who pay every day because they have condemned themselves to be joyless husks, as to be otherwise, simply confirms their hypocrisy.
Their antinatalism will ensure their self-imposed suffering and despair, so let them run around their wheels and be thankful that you are not infected with their dimwitted point of view.
All good people prove these misanthropes wrong every day by experiencing joy, happiness wonder almost every day. We and those of us that have children can share in that fantastic experience and we can observe the misanthropes running around on their wheels to nowhere. They inherit the wind and because most people are good, they also have our pity.

Meantime, we will continue to work hard to alleviate all significant forms of human suffering.
The useless antinatalists will do nothing to help stop human suffering but they are a tiny useless minority. Thankfully we can develop better politics and better technologies which will reduce human suffering in the future. I predict that human reproduction will continue!

If all life was ended in the universe then we would simply be back to an earlier time in the past 13.8 billion years. Life then happened, we dont know why but I for one think we are the universes' best attempt at trying to figure out what and why it is. Antinatalism would do great harm to the purpose of life.
Part of the wonder of life is asking questions about life. No questions could be asked if we were not here to ask them. This is a great harm in my opinion.
Extreme human suffering and harm can be reduced and controlled through human effort, it is utterly ridiculous and even lazy-minded to suggest that the solution to human suffering is human extinction.

The line of your debate:

You: "Don't say x, y, or z -- only tell me which premise is false!"

Interlocutor: "Premise k is false."

"No, premise k is true."

"How?"

"It's self-evidently true."

"I don't see any reason to believe it."

"That's because you're an idiot." — Xtrix

Absafragginlootly SPOT ON!!!! Pure Trumpism!

The problem is that it's not even an argument, because it's not interested in persuading anyone and doesn't support itself in any way other than "this is a self-evident, undeniable truth" and then making up a story. — Xtrix

I can only agree. The antinatalists on this thread try to preach like fundamentalists or evanhellical theists.
Their approach is pure Trumpism, in my opinion.
Like Trumpism, they Ignore all truths and valid points made by all dissenters and just keep repeating 'The innocent don't deserve harm,' as if that is a valid argument.
It does not matter that antinatalism is very very harmful or 'deserve' is a judgment call or innocence and morality are less important than the existence of life, etc.
They just ignore all truth and repeat their ridiculous claims.
They haven't even addressed the two clips posted by @DA671 because their Trumpist approach is to play down such ACTUAL examples of organised antinatalism.
The good thing about this thread is that they have been fully exposed as the misanthropes they are.
I am happy that they have no children to infect with their point of view.

Ok.

But not if you want to sleep. It will keep you awake! :grin:
Otherwise, just "I know that I know" is enough. It tells all. — Alkis Piskas

Yeah, I think that you could make too many voices in your head with that one but if you can be satisfied with I am aware that I am aware then fair enough. Doesn't do it for me, unfortunately!

But then we can use that to view our thoughts, problems, emotions and a lot of other things in which we are getting too involved in and being catpured by, from an external, detached point of view. — Alkis Piskas

Stand outside yourself and observe the processes of your own mind. Yes, I do that but as I have said to you before, using my best mental efforts, I only ever perceive 3 combatants/teammates/characters. Perhaps this is just because I have only been able to see the brain as a triune system ever since Carl Sagan told me so in his books. Any one of me, myself and I can stand outside the other two and observe /listen to their viewpoints/fears/joys etc. Sometimes they fight and slag each other off, other times they unite and are focused and very sure about what they are doing. This works well for me. Perhaps it is just a case of well, whatever keeps your boat afloat.
Still, I would like to know a great deal more so I turn to those actively involved in investigating consciousness for more insight but I also enjoy reading about how other people such as you, perceive themselves.

Try to think of any animal doing what I described in my previous comment. How long could you hold such a thought? — Alkis Piskas

I am not so convinced. I have read about many examples of animal intelligence. From Koko the gorilla to base info stuff such as Most Intelligent Animals.

Nothing of the two. I used that just an expression I felt nice about! — Alkis Piskas

Fair enough but I personally, need a lot more than that. It's good to feel nice and be 'content' with your own musings about consciousness/awareness but I will always seek proof. Even if I never get it, I will die seeking it and die happy in the effort.

Yes, I think ↪Bartricks pretty much sums up that state of the arguments. He's resorted to talking about pixies. — Isaac

:rofl: Along with tubs of lard and waffle irons. When you start to employ cooking images and supernatural fables, you lost the arguments ages ago. All the logical points made by me, you, @Xtrix, @DA671 and many others on this thread will never be acknowledged or accepted by the antinatalists. They get their jollies from the 'shock value,' they think they are causing. The result of antinatalism is clearly shown in the two clips posted by DA671. They represent organised antinatalism in the USA.
As I said you have already fully debunked them here.

The antinatalists here are convinced that if they keep repeating their ridiculous arguments then they will get some easily duped followers. All of their points have been utterly debunked on this thread. Any future rational readers will dismiss them completely. I suggest to those still engaging them on this thread that your work is done. They are dead in the water.

But thanks again for bringing up this subject. — Alkis Piskas

:up:

The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware", — Alkis Piskas

Can that not go on forever? Are you aware that you're aware that you're aware?

It does not exist in any other form of life. — Alkis Piskas

How do know that for sure?

I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do. — Alkis Piskas

Does any aspect of the mind exist in the body? Is all of what you refer to as mind non-physical? Does any aspect of what you refer to as mind reside/exist in the body in your opinion?

They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything. — Alkis Piskas

Do you mean that what you are referring to as 'mind' can travel? or are you suggesting there is an aspect of mind which is omnipresent?

'All swans are white,' is falsifiable, all you need to find is a non-white swan. The existence of god is not falsifiable as there is no reliable evidence either way. Evolution is falsifiable as you can predict the exact way a creature will 'change' or 'evolve' over time by studying its environment but your predictions are not necessarily going to be 100% correct. You can 'Induce' outcomes from your understanding of the processes involved and the 'state' of the inputs you are using but you don't have enough predictive power in evolution to propose the LAW of evolution. It remains the THEORY of evolution but the evidence that it is correct is very solid indeed.

Here is a good example of 'natural selection' at work over time. I like this one because its a mix of history, folklore and evolution by natural selection. It was also used in Carl Sagan's Cosmos:

The Battle of Dan-no-ura was preceded by an immense struggle between the imperial rulers of Japan, the Taira clan (also known as the Heike), who the Heikegani crabs are named after, and the Minamoto clan (Genji), who were fighting for control of the throne at the end of the 12th century in the Genpei War (1180–1185).[6]

On the 24th of April, 1185 AD, two powerful Samurai clans fought to the death on the Dan-no-ura bay of Japan's Inland Sea. The ruling Taira clan (Heike) was led by their child-Emperor, Antoku, and his grandmother, Taira no Tokiko. The Heike had ruled Japan for many decades, but now, massively outnumbered, they faced defeat at the hands of the Minamoto.

During the battle, Tokiko took the seven-year-old Emperor Antoku and leaped with him into the water in the Shimonoseki Straits, drowning the child emperor, rather than allowing him to be captured by the opposing forces, and most members and generals of the Taira clan followed them in despair. Antoku came to be worshipped as Mizu-no-kami ("god of water").

This crucial battle was a cultural and political turning point in Japanese history: Minamoto Yoritomo became the first Shōgun, or military ruler, of Japan. Dan-no-ura marked the beginning of seven centuries during which Japan was ruled by warriors and Shōguns instead of Emperors and aristocrats.

Heikegani were used by Carl Sagan in his popular science television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage as an example of unintentional artificial selection, an interpretation originally published by Julian Huxley in 1952. According to this hypothesis, the crabs with shells resembling samurai were thrown back to the sea by fishermen out of respect for the Heike warriors, while those not resembling samurai were eaten, giving the former a greater chance of reproducing. Therefore, the more closely the crabs resembled a samurai face, the more likely they would be spared and thrown back.

This idea has met with some skepticism. Joel Martin for instance notes that humans do not eat heikegani, and as such there is no artificial pressure favoring face-like shell patterns, contrary to Sagan's implication. The pattern of ridges on the carapace serves a very functional purpose as sites of muscle attachment. Similar patterns are found on the carapaces of other species and genera throughout the world, including numerous fossil taxa.

Here are images of heike crabs that the Japanese refuse to eat because their carapace has what looks like the face of a samurai warrior!

Crab1

Crab2

Crab3

Here is another offering from Stuart Hameroff with much more detail on the Orch OR Model:



What I like most about this presentation is that Hameroff takes on the papers published so far, which speak against their Orch OR model and he defends the model against these papers.

"It's quantum" has much the same utility as "God did it" — Banno

Nonsense! Quantum is real god is not.

that's the only kind of payload, as far as interstellar travel is concerned. You're never going to get carbon-based lifeforms to another star system, it's strictly sci-fi. — Wayfarer

Sure we can. Time is vast in quantity. Even a simple idea like building a space station transit system may take us a million years but that million years will pass anyway and transhumanism means we don't have to remain purely carbon-based. Sci-fi often eventually becomes sci-fact. There are plenty of examples of that from the past so why not in the future.

It's a shame you can't find (or you remain unwilling to find) enough hope in yourself to condemn the antinatalists based on the 'hope springs eternal,' example the James Webb project exemplifies.

Have a look at Yuri Milner's Breakthrough Starshot. I love the ambition, and the vision, but I'm dubious about the reality. — Wayfarer

I am familiar with the starshot idea but it only offers information-gathering tiny probes. I am of course an enthusiastic fan of the starshot idea. I also despise billionaires in any form. Starshot should be under the control of a global space agency and not controlled by narcissistic billionaire boys with toys.

(The nearest star to our Sun is Alpha Centauri - from memory - around 7 lya I think. Even that would be a voyage of thousands of years. — Wayfarer

Proxima Centauri is only 4.2 light-years away. It has an interesting planet, Proxima B.
Perhaps we will build space stations along the way eventually, stepping stones across space.
Generational ships is another future possibility and who knows what 'shortcuts' we may discover in the future. If your future transhuman body is good enough we may find ways to survive in space and live for thousands of years. Never say never my wayfaring friend!

↪universeness :up: — Agent Smith

So I have to ask you a follow-up question based on your 'sometimes' support of antinatalism.
If there were no humans then fantastic inventions like the James Webb telescope could not happen.
Do such wonders not make you feel that human life is indeed worth the effort despite the presence of harms and suffering and that the views proposed by antinatalists on this forum are misguided.
Listen to @DA671 not the antinatalists!

:up: I think it's a very reasonable proposal that there may well be an emergent universal consciousness in the sense of a collective totality of all sentient life. If all sentient life could 'network' at some point in the future, what would that produce?