The self-destruct countdown began...quando? — Agent Smith

The beginning of man. The self-destruct was there from the start. When man first demanded something and needed a supply of it. When someone supplied the demand and demanded other people's labor which could be sold to the supplier so that their own demands can be satisfied. Again, it's Will playing out, embodied in the real world transactions of the labor force and the marketplace.

Life is somewhat of an ouroboros (prey-predator, food web). Death (destruction/0) works against with Birth (creation/1)! — Agent Smith

The market place is like Schopenhauer's Will playing out in an endless cycle of "supply" and "demand" eating each other, as you say- like the ouroboros (prey-predator). Your constant demands and his supply means suffering will continue.. NOW GET BACK TO WORK! People need work to provide "meaning". It's part of a "system" (free, socialist, or otherwise) that needs feeding with more people and more people's attention. Nothing gets done on its own.. but everyone must contribute or perish. How can birth not be a political question? Obviously people want the system to keep going.. More reinforcing of the supply and demand.. Double down. Meanwhile the ouroboros' squeeze gets tighter and tighter.

Why do these quotes oddly cheer me up :lol:?

One could not do (or not do) anything to a person or on behalf of a person at all because there was no person to act upon until the act of creation was over. Ergo, the act of creation cannot be done to, or for, the person thereby created. It breaks normal causality. — Isaac

This is ridiculous. Now you are going to deny the idea of conditionals (things that COULD very well happen if you acted upon it?). Odd thing to deny. For example, you COULD be making a better argument, but you are making this one. If a baby is born into a lava pit, what is it that is born into a lava pit.. Wait. for. it. A PERSON! THAT is the entity that should not be thrown into a lava pit. But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? Rubbish.

Yes. Obviously. A person cannot become a person. They already are one. An embryo becomes a person, or a gamete does, or a 'disembodied soul' does, depending on your beliefs. — Isaac

Yep and do not make those X (gametes, embryo, disembodied soul) a person. What's your point?

But...this is the important bit...no one imposes the necessary conditions of existence even on those. An embryo has necessary conditions of existence. A gamete cell has necessary conditions of existence. A disembodied soul has necessary conditions of existence.

For anything which exists it is necessary that it resist entropic decay otherwise it will cease to exist.

This is a necessary condition even of computer code, galaxies, sandcastles...

No one imposes this. — Isaac

You notice, I don't care much what happens to rocks, galaxies, and other non-sentient things. I wonder why that is?

None of that makes sense. The state of affairs you're talking about are a necessity for the 'someone else'. So your second statement is absolutely, unarguably false. — Isaac

Maybe you are misunderstanding it? It is meant that there is a counterfactual that COULD have happened (Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X).

One doesn't 'come into existence' at all. It's not a thing that 'one' can do because 'one' has to exist first. Before. — Isaac

Weird metaphysics. A "person" at some point X becomes a person (though this is often debated as "when"). You disagree?

Twisting of how language works...

Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.

Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).

As to the general philosophy, I've already presented counterarguments on several occasions. I've no intention of repeating them to the disinterested. — Isaac

And I've argued and counterargued back, so? These are the kind of statements that can be said on both sides against the opposing view.

Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you. — Isaac

What? Procreation takes the will and act of others...The state of affairs of being procreated is a state of affairs of X condition. You can mince words all you like, that is all I need to make the case. Everything else is rhetorical nonsense you are trying to make a case OUT OF but for which none exists.

Being you requires that you survive or die. So it's impossible for someone to impose that situation on you. It what being you consists of. — Isaac

Procreation is not an event? Being born is not a state of affairs caused by an act previously? Interesting. Didn't know that.

You can whinge like a five year old about it. Fucking annoying, but not incoherent. — Isaac

But this is the canard of those who impose. I can call anything you say, do, and believe annoying as fuck and even throw in a lot of :roll: :roll: :roll: , so? These kind of not-so-subtle ad homs don't do much and are annoying as fuck.. Not unpredictable though.

Saying someone did it to you is equally annoying, but additionally incoherent. — Isaac

So like anything nuanced, it's not really that kind of complaint, how you phrase it. Rather the project of procreation itself is being impugned, and not trying to "pin" the practice on this or that set of people for not sufficiently understanding the philosophy or embracing it. I am not here to condemn the people, just question the practice and philosophy that is seemingly "unquestionable" for many folks and who get riled up in any philosophical attempt to engage it because they can't cope with differences, which is real fucking annoying sometimes.

He truly understood melancholy from the inside. That is to say.. He knew that suicide was only ever something as an idea and was never a proper response because the damage is never undone. Basically, there is no relief, only moments of calmness within life itself. Though rare.

The philosopher replied, "Since there's no difference between being alive and being dead, why should I go to the trouble?" — Torus34

E.M Cioran said it better:

The obsession with suicide is characteristic of the man who can neither live nor die, and whose attention never swerves from this double impossibility.

When people come to me saying they want to kill themselves, I tell them, "What's your rush? You can kill yourself any time you like. So calm down. Suicide is a positive act." And they do calm down.

Only optimists commit suicide, the optimists who can no longer be . . . optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why should they have any to die?

It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.

It's the difference between a fireman complaining about long working hours and a fireman complaining about fighting fires. A fireman need not work long hours, but a fireman just ceases to be a fireman unless they fight fires. — Isaac

I don't see the distinction as valuable. If you had to fight fires for the rest of your life and could not escape unless you killed yourself, you can complain legitimately, even if that means there wouldn't be a "you" without fighting fires. If someone says.. "Boy, I hate this feature that life is about that I find myself having to encounter".. That is a legitimate complaint (e.g. people inevitably get sick, die, encounter negative things, etc.).

Yeah. Lava pits are dangerous and babies need not be born into them. — Isaac

Glad we are on the same page there.

Someone did that to the baby the moment that baby was born (or conceived even). — Isaac

That’s also applied to any necessary condition of life.

It is a necessary part of being you that you either do what it takes to survive or you die. — Isaac

And a conditions necessity doesn’t make it any different than the lava pit scenario, when it comes to impositions.

Since there was no you before then (nor could there even possibly be) no-one 'did' anything to you. — Isaac

So baby born into lava pit. No one “did” anything. Lava pit is a condition.

And your problem with all your arguments is you don’t recognize de facto conditions as still forced conditions.

I don’t want this condition..is not breaking any grammar rules. The condition being necessary makes it all the more pertinent to the argument. You do X then Y will always happen. It is a state of affairs.

The alternative is no you at all. It’s called states of affairs. I can talk about those as conditionals and counterfactuals. A child could be born (forced) or not (not forced). Oh dear how I broke all time, logic, and proportion, oh my!

For NOS, if it was okay to be born, and have the conditions of life foisted on you, then some people want healthcare foisted on others. If a majority vote it in a democracy, foisting can become legitimate governance. Then it’s about at what level is healthcare programs appropriate. Is it violating a right? So is any governance some would say. Where’s the line?

No one forces me to work, though, except the state. — NOS4A2

I didn’t say that. Rather the situation of comply (work/survive in X way) or die was forced upon you. That wasn’t the state. And if you retort that you don’t mind this, other people don’t mind state sponsored healthcare and other collectivist ideas.

I like working. Like you said, without it I die. I can use my myself to sustain myself. It’s amazing when I think of it. — NOS4A2

Some people like state sponsored healthcare. So?Do you see that there is no substantial difference. You arbitrarily start after the forced decision…

Also some people have a disability and no families.

Of course, genuine happiness often comes from cooperation — DA671

(a lot of negatives placed upon someone else).

it is not ethical to cease the provision of all happiness. — DA671

Why is that a moral obligation to start if nothing was there who needed it in the first place and there are many negative collaterals attached to this decision? You would be maybe more accurate if you were only giving a pure good with no contingencies.

If creation can be an imposition, it can also be seen as a gift. — DA671

Gifts don’t entail such significant harms and conditions usually. One can call anything a gift and that would be gaslighting to some extent.

It’s never just or right to presume such significant conditions and harms for another. Only when ameliorating greater with lesser harms and you can’t get consent which this is not a case of.

Except for existing beings who wish to be consistent and who would understand the value of a benefit. — DA671

Benefit with non-benefit (negative) on someone else’s behalf..you know the position.

Yep no “one” would have to worry about that.

The universe doesn’t benefit or not benefit anything. Lucky for you the dicey ethical practice for assuming for others doesn’t apply to that category of thing.

You present a false dichotomy. We are already put-upon by being born itself. You have to survive. You didn't choose this. You can comply with the dictates necessary for survival or die. This itself is the primordial conflict.

It is a fact that we need to work to survive in some socio-economic context. YOU are a worker in that context. There is the illusion that because in some societies there are limited market transactions to sell your labor, that this must be just. But the injustice is needing a job in the first place.

Look at it this way.. If your only retort is, "If you don't like it, you can always kill yourself" then your supposed doctrine of "freedom" has a flaw from it right from the start. The problem with political philosophy is its narrow-mindedness to the defaults of our human condition, as if it can be cut off into something like "free markets vs. collectivist" debates. Politics starts at being born at all.

I would never presume to speak for the universe :roll:. We went for presuming for other humans to presuming for all of space/time/matter and everything.

One can't take the mechanisms of evolution (survival fit/reproduction) as the universe "saying" anything. It is a contingent form of how matter formed and a mechanism whereby some of that matter (biological matter), has developed. It isn't a moral statement from the universe. Category errors and misguided understanding of sentience, contingency, and implication thereof.

Cioran is highly edifying in his inertia. Even suicide is caring too much.

We just need to know how to use them. — L'éléphant

You’ve already defeated your own argument that we are “at home” like other animals and extolled the existential /absurdist dilemma (of the specifically human condition) in one sentence.

This projection of self into the future of years of mediocrity and meaningless routine and general discomfort, followed by the death one fears, is what fills and poisons the present, — unenlightened

To get up in the morning, wash and then wait for some unforeseen variety of dread or depression. I would give the whole universe and all of Shakespeare for a grain of ataraxy.

My faculty for disappointment surpasses understanding. It is what lets me comprehend Buddha, but also what keeps me from following him.

I am enraptured by Hindu philosophy, whose essential endeavor is to surmount the self; and everything I do, everything I think is only myself and the selfs humiliations.

In the fact of being born there is such an absence of necessity that when you think about it a little more than usual, you are left—ignorant how to react—with a foolish grin

The same feeling of not belonging, of futility, wherever I go: I pretend interest in what matters nothing to me, I bestir myself mechanically or out of charity, without ever being caught up, without ever being somewhere. What attracts me is elsewhere, and I don't know where that elsewhere is.

Three in the morning. I realize this second, then this one, then the next: I draw up the balance sheet for each minute. And why all this? Because I was born. It is a special type of sleeplessness that produces the indictment of birth.
— E.m Cioran- The a Trouble with Being Born

An innate language module of the Chomskian sort specifies a particular way of organizing grammar prior to and completely independent of social interaction. Lakoff’s innate capacities for cognition do not dictate any particular syntactic or semantic patterns of language. Those are completely determined by interaction. — Joshs

I believe Chomsky went from a much more complex grammar rule-based brain to simply "Merge".

As for scenario 2, that one cannot simply force others to cater to one's needs should go without saying. If we were to consider that acceptable we'd be back in the jungle. — Tzeentch

And the obvious retort is something like, "It's not bad to force people if X amount of people wouldn't have minded it". There's a whole slew of things I find wrong with this. The obvious one is your parachute response.. "If you were to push someone out of a plane and 90% of the time the parachute worked.."
But also, even if there were a very high percentage of people who literally said: "I don't mind it.." There is something seemingly wrong with choosing for someone such significant conditions such as what choices one is exposed (like how to survive in this world, etc.) and what kinds of harms are acceptable. This isn't a trivial gift that can be gotten rid of.. We are talking a lifetime of having to do X, Y, Z here. These are not trite, arbitrary, and trivial. These are substantial things that one person is deciding for another.. And judging from the responses here.. All deemed as acceptable because the parents might be "sad" or "unfulfilled". Totally counter-intuitive when compared to any other weighty decision made on others' behalf. This gets a pass because if Joe, Bob, Sue, and Sam want to see X outcome (a new person), they will excuse it any which way..

On top of this.. literally saying "I don't mind this".. Is just one consideration. The next minute, that same person can be trapped in a lot of unwanted tasks/harms/scenarios that they would definitely mind.. So is it the general statement or the "lived experience" of things they would rather not do that we pay attention to? Because in each of those moments you asked them, they would say.. "Well I don't want this" and "Yes, I very much do mind that".

Also, should we even be basing such weighty decisions on post-facto responses in the first place? The only time we usually do such things and find it ethical is if someone has a greater harm that could be prevented and no consent could be had (comas, bad accidents, etc.). There is never another time it is usually deemed as acceptable to make life/death/weighty/SIGNIFICANT decisions for someone else "just because we would be sad if we didn't" or any excuse like that. No, even on the FACE OF IT, this kind of thinking is off. You don't need any contingencies attached like "X amount of people will probably like it" to get that making these kinds of decisions are always presumptuous to the extreme. Again, what I deem as "aggressively paternalistic".

I think there is an odd notion going on here. I'd like to know your thoughts. The notion is something like this:

"I feel sad, lonely, uncomfortable (X negative feeling), THEREFORE another person MUST endure X for me".

There are a couple scenarios one can make from this:

1) Someone asks for help/favor.. If you deny it to them.. They can think you're a lousy unhelpful bastard, but it is not immoral per se.

2) Someone wants something out of life so they will FORCE someone else to comply with their needs because it will fix their current negative feeling of not being fulfilled. THAT is unethical. Another person in a way, "pays the cost" of your unfulfillment by being imposed upon. Not only that if that imposition (definition A of simply forcing your will on another) also creates impositions (definition B of burdening someone), it has the double aspect of not only forcing your will without consent but creating negative outcomes for others in your strident decision on their behalf.

3) Someone asks for help/favor.. you help them. They appreciate your decision. However, not helping was not unethical. Rather, helping was supererogatory. That is to say, one went above the ethical guidelines.

I'm wondering if you can add your notion of non-interference to those three ideas and scenarios.

@Cuthbert, perhaps you can add something as well as this is partially sparked by your last posts.

Is an empty world an immoral outcome, or just one that we as humans don't find very appealing? — Tzeentch

Exactly!

And an empty world, I cannot help feeling, might be a bad thing. I would be promoting an ethical principle which, if applied generally, would lead to a world without humans. That's my problem. — Cuthbert

This is projection of fear of nothingness. You as an
Individual will not be in the world one day. Not just a projection of it from the alive vantage point. Life itself causes death. So I get your mixed feeling but it’s just a feeling. There are logistical questions of the last generations but thats not necessarily the wrongness of the principle.

Your fear thus causing you to “pass it on” to the next generation because of an uncomfortable or sad notion would be like a pyramid scheme.

We can enjoy our position on the anti-natalist high ground, not have to bother with bringing up children and all will be well. Yet there seems something faintly, I don't know, well, off about this, though I can't quite name it. Perhaps it's a scent of self-righteous free-loading hypocritical nonsense, or did I forget my after-shave? — Cuthbert

Hey when I force recruit you to my company you can save all the whales you want! Hopefully you can be grateful to me for allowing you to do your help projects and giving you this “opportunity”. I’ll make sure to give you the range of choices are best and decide that you should be harmed in certain ways I deem as acceptable. There will also be a set of unknown harms I hope you don’t mind I decided maybe or maybe not will happen to you. I guess we’ll find out!

Non-existent beings have no interest to avoid existence that is being disregarded as they are dragged away from the blissful void. F — DA671

You keep thinking I’m claiming this straw man. Either you are arguing out of bad faith now or you just can’t stop repeating it for some reason.

Kidnapping someone (or intentionally forcing them to do something they dislike) is highly unlikely to give them happiness they want and deserve — DA671

And because you ignored my explicit comment that the imposition is still in question BESIDES the obvious kidnapping aspect means you do seem to be arguing out of bad faith by ignoring what I’m saying.

It's not for you to decide what choices are "de facto" adequate for all sentient beings, — DA671

That’s actually my point. You are not deciding “for” anything by the non-procreation option. @Tzeentch described it as “non-interferance”. Maybe he can explain his position that is similar.

The good is certainly relevant. The harms are not the only important thing. Preventing all positives because of the possibility of negatives is problematic. If there doesn't have to be an actual benefit in order for us to say that creation unethically causes damage and imposition, then there is also no necessity for the lack of procreation to cause damage to someone for us to say that it is still good to bestow provide happiness. — DA671

Huh? I know you are trying to make your repeatedly refuted argument, but this variation of it is hard to comprehend.

The proof by assertion fallacy is being exemplified here. Unless the so-called game can be a source of greater value for a person and that person has an interest in it, it isn't necessary. However, non-existent beings are not in a state of affairs they prefer, which is why excessive risk-aversion at the cost of ignoring the opportunities is probably unwise. I already have the gift, and I appreciate it despite the limitations (just as many do). But even if I did not, it does not erase the value of the joy experienced by you or someone else. If you were to save me and give me something good even if there were some negatives that I would have to face, it would still be better to provide the benefits. Perspectives and experiences can differ. It is an act of beneficence to bestow a good. — DA671

It is not obligatory, nor moral to bestow goods with significant amounts of harms and choices made for other people. Never was, never is. If I have you work at my company and say you can never leave my company because I believe you to get benefit from it.. And somehow you are stuck there... Even if you derive some benefit from it eventually, BESIDES the kidnapping aspect, I would still be wrong in imposing my sets of choices on you and imposing my view of what harm is "good" for you.. Along the way you also were harmed unexpectedly (I didn't want you to get harmed in "that" way...or wasn't expecting "that" kind of harm). Well, life is just a bigger version of this. Just because the "sets of choices" are much broader doesn't mean they are not THE de facto sets of choices someone SHOULD be made to encounter. Same with harms. Same with gambling with unexpected kinds/amounts of harm.

Nonetheless, antinatalism is also an imposition.

Think of it in terms of possible persons. This isn't far out, it's perfectly reasonable to do so, as an actual (person) implies (a) possible (person). — Agent Smith

What is the damage to said "person" by not reproducing them? Do you get to produce "good" (with limitations of choices and harms) because you feel uncomfortable that a potential good did not actualize? How is that a justification? "OH I feel uncomfortable and sad by not forcing others into X, therefore I shall do it". Does that sound right? The judgement of "sad" or "uncomfortable from the missed opportunity is simply your imaginative projection.

And no, it doesn't go the other way.. That is to say.. I don't care about the happiness of missed negatives (as there is no person to be happy about this. Just me). Rather, I do not want to be the cause of imposing my view onto others for what choices another should endure and what harms are acceptable, let alone gamble with the unforeseen harms.

It's not respectful/kind to care about preserving the non-existent freedom of inexistent souls (and if the lack of procreation does not preserve anybody's freedom but creation is still an imposition, then it is still better to bestow positives even if not doing so is not an act of aggression against someone). If it is aggressive to create the negatives (whose prevention was desired by nobody), giving positives that cannot be solicited is an ethical act that has significant value. — DA671

No, it just isn't. Positives are not separated from the negatives and thus you are giving both. When giving both, one must face the fact one is creating impositions on others, whether bestowing goods or not. Is it ever okay to do this? No. It is aggressively assuming various choices and harms for other people. Goods doesn't thus make this not an issue.

If I gave you a gift that was tied to many limitations and harms that I figured was good for you and your only escape was death, that is similarly aggressively paternalistic in my assumptions of what I should do to you.

My hypothetical pessimistic outlook does not justify me trying to prevent the manifestation of a better state of affairs for a sentient being who is not in a position to ask for the positives themselves. — DA671

It’s not aggressive to give nothing to no one.

However, non-existent beings are not in a positive state of affairs, which is why one should definitely focus on the opportunities as well as the risks. — DA671

THAT goods exist aren't justifications for the aggressive paternalistic assumptions in question. Just because there is a state of affairs that's better off than complete negative outcomes doesn't mean, THUS aggressively assume for the others what you think is best because goods exist.

I don't get to force people into my game because I think there are good parts they will enjoy in my game.

Then, I explained that if it can be paternalistic to create life, creation can also be an act of beneficence that gives a good. — DA671

That's just spin. I can limit you, create conditions of harms for you, and gamble with unknown harms on your behalf and then say, "I am giving you opportunities as well".. That's an old manager's trick when they hand you more busy work.