Not sure this issue resonates with me vey much. I am simply making the point that your presuppositions here may not be recognizable to everyone. — Tom Storm

If I were to say to you that you should not foist your view on others by not procreating other people who will have to take on the human enterprise who may not find this good, what would you say? I used an example of bowling for example. Just because I like bowling, should all of humanity bowl now? Why is the whole human project of having to exist and follow the structures of society be any different?

But, at the same time, I find myself thinking - everything you're saying is just geared to proving 'it isn't true.' That doesn't hit any chords with me. Analogically: I could talk napoleon with someone, but if that person was bent on proving one thing I wasn't super invested in, I'd be like 'damn, this guy knows a lot, but we're just not approaching this topic on the same wavelength.' I respect your research, but all I'm learning is that you know a lot of details that tend toward jesus not being the son of god. Ok, sure, but I don't feel like I'm learning anything more about the text. — csalisbury

Well, I did warn you that I was coming at this from an anthropological/historical angle. I understand, you are more trying to analyze the sayings of the group(s) in question, and not necessarily the context for the formation of the groups and where it fit in historically/anthropologically. Granted, we are interested in two different things here.. To jump more into your interests.. Even though I think gnosticism was not really related to the historical Jesus (as I explained who I thought he was), tangentially, my own philosophies of antinatalism/philosophical pessimism very much align with these views, so it interests me as a philosophy, even if its mythical aspects are simply historical contingencies converging on certain ideas and even though a main spokesperson (Jesus) was used as a mouthpiece rather than being something the historical person even knew about let alone said.

I don't understand the sentence. — Tom Storm

So we live in a society.. this big superstructure.. basically we participate in it as a species to survive, get more comfortable, find entertainment. I'll just call it the "human enterprise". Why should we procreate more people and perpetuate this project? More to the point, if people could be born that don't just "live" but can evaluate that they don't like living, why would we put people into that situation where they can evaluate the very thing they need to survive as negative?

Well, the antinatalist foists nothing on no one. Their political statement of "NO" to life, creates no forced dealing with participating and being forced to deal with the social-economic-cultural superstructure.

The procreation sympathizers do indeed foist their view on others, whether they can evaluate it negative or not. Their solution is these people better get with the program that they think is "good" or kill themselves.

These are both political statements about the state of existence. Even more unfair.. The antinatalist is seen as knee-jerk just wrong while the status quo of the majority procreation sympathizers is seen as "obviously" the right or even inevitable political view.

Jesus is a real historical figure. I think he comes from some branch of Essenic Judaism around the Galilean region. End of Times was important to them. But I also think he incorporated Pharisaic Judaism as well, but not all of it. The sect Jesus was a part of was probably started by John the Baptist which was a sort of synthesis of Galilean/Essenic Judaism, if I want to get real specific. Like all sects of Judaism in Israel proper, they had an interpretation of several basic things.. Jewish Law and what to do about oppression from Rome. His interpretation of Jewish law was to follow the law very closely but that certain additions that the Pharisees advocated were not necessary.. So for example, Jesus would probably never say that one should eat un-kosher foods, but one does not have to wash ones hands ritually before consuming food like the Pharisees advocated. He seemed to appreciate the intent of the law like Hillel but sided with Shammai as far as matters of divorce. These are very specific rabbinical debates around the time of Jesus and he was putting in his two cents..

As far as what to do about Rome.. He was clearly influenced by ideas of the End of Times by Essenic-type groups. The Judaism of the time needed to be reformed in the practices at the Temple, the people had to follow the laws more intensely and with the right interpretation. Perhaps he thought he was on a mission to restore a more righteous kingdom, restoring the Davidic throne, etc. etc. The idea of a Son of Man was something floating around the time of Jesus. All I was saying is maybe the Messiah- the longed for restored Jewish king was somehow associated with Daniel's vision of Son of Man.. And thus when Jesus says the Son of Man sent him (if he did say something this at all), it could be like he was anointed by this angelic figure to restore the Davidic kingdom.. Jesus always viewed himself as a man restoring the kingship, even if he claimed to be sent from the Son of Man.. What I am saying is after his death.. figures like Paul of Tarsus turned this concept into something different.. Rather, Jesus becomes a divine figure who "dies for your sins".. and thus the gentile version of the Jesus Movement begins. This is usually attributed to Paul and his writings. The original Jesus Movement about a particular Essenic Jew trying to restore the kingdom of Israel by instilling proper interpretation of Jewish law becomes a god-man under Paul.. There is a lot to unpack but that is a very brief understanding.

The original Jewish movement that Jesus started continued for only 100 years or so and mainly led by his actual brothers (James, Judas, Simeon, etc.), But eventually, the Pauline gentile communities became associated with what is "Christianity" and this original movement also started getting pushed out of mainstream synagogues in the Levant..

oh ok you're doing that dude's thing. Yeah maybe jesus wan't real. What's the guy's name? I read his book a while back. Bummer, I thought you were coming at this from a more interesting angle. But fair, maybe jesus wasn't real. — csalisbury

No you misinterpreted me completely.

Well, it is not always a given that changes to undermine the stats quo are going to be good. It is always possible that you will make things worse. And people do not agree about ways forward. — Tom Storm

What is being made worse by making the political statement that one should not perpetuate the socio-economic-cultural project? Why is this necessary to perpetuate?

I would want a much better understanding of whether this claim is true and in what ways. Not everyone can evaluate. Some people lack insight. Some are rewarded as much as they are penalized. Some do not experience harm even if it is present. — Tom Storm

The fact is, we as humans can evaluate something as negative while we are doing those things. We don't just "exist" but we know we like or don't like something as we are doing it. Why would we want to foist an existence where one not only has to survive, but can evaluate a negative value to this very act of having to survive?

One aspect that has long pestered me is that so much of the language appears in so many different ways but keeps repeating in one form or another at the same (or other) time.

It is a collection of ideas but also something else. — Valentinus

Gnostic ideas, the idea that there is something wrong with this physical world.. I can relate :D. The idea that we are exiled here and we keep being attached to it and thus perpetuate it.

My 'scholarly' understanding of the Old testament largely comes from a single archaeology book, and traces it to Hezekiah, rather than Ezra and the expats. I don't know if it's right, could well not be. But I think we both agree that the OT is a a sort of library structured at some moment within the events being recalled. — csalisbury

So that book is bringing up the reformist period of Hezekiah. I didn't want to get that detailed, but the archeology book reflects a consensus that the monotheistic reforms started taking place more-or-less around Hezekiah. Baal, Asherah, and others from the original Canaanite pantheon were starting to be banned and centralization in Jerusalem of Kohein/Levites and Temple practices seems to take place around this period. There wasn't a full fledged system yet, but there was probably something like the Deutoronomic part of the Torah a little after Hezekiah, formulated by the priests in the time of King Josiah in the 600s BCE. At the end of the day, most scholars believe the final crystallization of what become Second Temple Judaism (that later became Rabbinic Judaism and Karaite Judaism after the destruction of the Temple), would be the consensus that came back from Persia of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Great Assembly (if this is considered not just a myth from the Perkeit Avot retelling).

Long story short, the the transformation of Israelite henotheism to monotheism didn't happened overnight and started in the prophetic schools of the "Yaweh" only around the time of Hezekiah, continued through kings like Josiah, and then the transferred to the prieistly-scribal-prophet class that were allowed to form communities in Babylonia and reform the religion when Persia let these elites come back to Israel and reform it under their new priestly based (not king based) religion.

I'd be interested to hear more about the provenance of gnostic thought, and how it got tangled up with christ. — csalisbury

I think that is an interesting thing as to just how Jesus gets mixed in with gnosticism. I think before you look into gnostic thought, you should look at some of its precursors in Jewish writers like Philo who lived in Alexandria. Pauline ideas of logos seem to be suspiciously parallel to Philos ideas. I think these ideas were in the air and came from trying to apply Greek rhetoric to Jewish thought, which was more tribal historical based on a certain people and set of practices.

This is highly speculative, but here could be a possible path that happened..
The historical Jesus became associated with the Essenic/Ebionite notion of a Son of Man who is a sort of angelic figure who was associated with the ancient figure of Enoch who was supposed to have been taken to heaven and perhaps was transformed into an angelic being (later associated with Metatron and other angelic figures). This Son of Man probably originated in speculation as to the vision of Daniel. Some groups that this was a metaphor for Israel as a whole, some saw it as a metaphor for a certain Maccabean king, and others saw it as a true blue heavenly figure. This heavenly figure then becomes associated with the notion that there would be a restoration of a Jewish king. Perhaps the Jewish king is some representative of the Son of Man on earth.. Anyways.. play with these concepts however you will... it's all speculation, what happens is proto-gnostic sects, people like Paul, take this concept of Son of Man, who is representative of heavenly ruler on earth, and makes the human who was anointed as human representative as an ACTUAL divine being that was an actual Son of God, a "god-man", etc. etc.

Anyways.. This second split from Son of Man turned into literal "Son of God", then splits again.. There are those who focus on the death/resurrection idea of a sacrifice of this Son of God who then gets even more exalted by the Book of John as the Logos (shades of Philo of Alexandria here). But then there are those who go pure "Hellenistic" and see the focus on Jesus the death/resurrection as an aberration from esoteric Hellenistic ideas of the mystery schools.

So Jesus original designation of a man who is representative of Son of Man, becomes Jesus a divine Son of God, who then becomes attached to Hellenistic groups who use this burgeoning character as a way to be a mouthpiece for the esoteric ideas that were already around in Alexandrian mystery schools, Hellenistic Judaism, Platonism, and the general synthesis of culture of that time period.

Antinatalists need Meet-Up groups; lodges, clubs, fraternities and sororities, associations, foundations. Bowling clubs, marching bands, nudist beaches, roller-coasters, coffee shops, bars, brothels, and bookstores. You all have got to BUILD THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT. Fucking will it into existence, dammit. — Bitter Crank

Damn, that's the best antinatalist call to action I've seen. I completely agree with you. I actually have an idea for the name of these groups as something like "Communities of Catharsis". In these groups one can bitch, moan, and gripe all one wants without any remonstrations to stop complaining and "get with the program". Rather, one unburdens oneself and is allowed to see their fellow humans as fellow-sufferers. Anyways, the bowling clubs and roller-coasters can be a good break in the routine of the regular catharsis meetings :D.

Two reasons: 1, the pain of continuing along as we have been is less than the possible pain of deviating from the path. 2. Analysis Paralysis. It's real: Examine a problem from enough different angles and one often finds there is no superior arrangement towards which one should move. — Bitter Crank

So bringing this back to politics.. If politics is about how to get large groups of people to do things, if we compare the antinatalist to the procreationist sympathizer, the antinatalist does not force anything on anyone, the procreationist sympathizer does. If you like bowling does that mean everyone should like bowling? If you like the whole "project" of the socio-cultural-economic enterprise of human existence, why must then others be pressed into this? One path leads to no enforcement, one does. They are both political statements, but the "yays" lead to pressing others into ones preferences and the "nays" do not do this. But it's not just this unjust outcome of the yays, it is the condemnation of the nays for being contrary to this foisting of (any) way of life (that is to say socio-cultural-economic enterprise of human existence).

Anyway, my point bringing up this "aborted novel" is, I guess, to point out that speculation about how to, for whatever reason, deliberately engineer human extinction will set off global conflagration of violent suffering one the panic sets-in of mass recognition of the inescapable loss of personal-generational futures, of the use (and abuse) of histories, of the consolations of soteriological faiths, of the relevance of scientific knowledge and discovery, etc. PD James et al have had it right: when looking hard enough at 'antinatalism' as an existential prospect, the very structure of human rationality, not merely our species biology, for better and worse, is an "immortality project" (Becker) manifest through natal hope. We are a tragic species either way – antinatality' solves nothing – which, my friends, is genuinely pessimistic. — 180 Proof

That is grim and pessimistic. It's ironic that antinatalism not working is pessimistic :D. But what you seem to describe is a sort of forced antinatalism. Rather, I see it as a contrarian political movement to the pro (whatever we have now movement). My question to you then is why do the people who want to perpetuate this "way of life" get to make the rules and the contrarians are the ones to go fuck off and commit suicide if they don't like it? Might makes right, right? Why is the default that getting to perpetuate the political-economic-cultural (what we do now) on yet more people is somehow "good" for them and for the universe? Why is this just default? Antinatalists getting their way means passively NOT forcing a way of life on anything. That is not true with the majority opinion as it is now.

Because it is intuitive and the majority believe it. — khaled

Not sure about that. There is a lot to unpack there. Because I like doing something doesn't mean that all of "humanity" should be doing it throughout all time.

And my point is that unlike simple habits that are never followed to the contrary or believed otherwise, we can believe a variety of things. Ad populum doesn't mean anything here to me as justification just that might makes right. Again, that is just political then.

Because those who didn't create them died out. And the ones that are left were the ones that felt the need to create such arrangements. So their children will also probably feel the same need due to either genetics or culture or both (probably both). — khaled

Certainly, when we live this is necessary for our species relying on cultural learning rather than inborn habits. However, we can self-reflect and say something like, "As I am doing this task to survive in this socio-economic circumstance, I am evaluating that I do not like this.." So one can always evaluate and not just blindly and unself-reflectively "do". So if we can self-reflect, we can decide, "Wait, if I do not like doing this, why would I want this to be a way of life for other people?". What is the need to perpetuate the way of life of needing to survive, etc? As you said:

If you're asking for why, that's why. If you're asking for justification: That would require the belief that the project is worth continuing somehow. Or the belief that not continuing the project is somehow harmful. — khaled

It's more like if we can evaluate any part of it or all of it as generally negative, why would we perpetuate it? And if we did, my real question is then, isn't this a political choice we are willing to be enacted into the world? That this way of life needs (somehow) to take place? And if this is a political choice, what is wrong with the contrarian view of this? Why is one praised be default?

Procreation (the whole rigamarole of conception, pregnancy, and birth, feeding, diaper changes, etc.) isn't an immediate need. For women it's kind of a pain. But sex is an immediate need. Heterosexual sex, however much aimed at short-term gratification, leads to conception with enough frequency to achieve a growing population. — Bitter Crank

But we all know that this is not cut-and-dry. Certainly one if one really wanted to, can refrain from sex for the rest of their life. It isn't as enjoyable as far as pleasure, but it is possible. However, with contraception that isn't necessary.. Roller coasters are also fun for many people.. but we certainly wouldn't want to ride one that hasn't been fully tested and have proper safety precautions. Obviously one can take precautions for sex as well, but you know that. Of course, unlike roller coasters, your personal sex life is not scrutinized for safety precautions by a commission of engineers :lol:. That might be the next step :D.

Is a growing population a problem? Until quite recently, it was not. In 1700 there were about .6B people. In 1800 the world population was about 1B. A century later it was 1.6B. Today it is 7.8B. Something (technology? better public health? more food? strong economy?) enabled population to more than double twice in 100 years. Culture hasn't kept up. Lots of people do not see a problem in 10 billion people converging with global warming. More fools they.

We are stuck with a large population, barring savage and draconian measures; a horrific epidemic (much worse than anything we have seen so far); or, my guess, agricultural collapse. No individual solutions will help, given the immensely unlikely possibility that 8 billion people will voluntarily refrain from reproductive sex. — Bitter Crank

I wonder if the epidemic is giving people pause to how much they want to expose their child to contingent harms of the world. At the least, the disruption in certain ways of life may have people more introspective as to what the hell they are even doing day in and day out and what for anyways.. If people aren't introspecting.. they should. They have the capabilities to self-reflect on an existential level, why wouldn't they?

Well, there is this "way of the world", the way things work. The higher-order self-questioning that leads to voluntary non-reproduction isn't very common among the world's people. There's nothing wrong with everybody; they are just doing what people do -- getting through their day. That is the world's way, from microbes on up. — Bitter Crank

But my point is we are not similar in one way to microbes and other animals- we can self-reflect on any given task, condition, state of affairs we are in AND we can aggregate and self-reflect on "EXISTENCE" as a whole. Why would we not question this practice of simply continuing this arrangement of (and I know I repeat..)

1) Social structures of economic, political, cultural institutions that de facto need to be entered into in order to survive, find comfort, and fill time with entertainment.

In light of the fact that we can...

2) Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them.

You will probably argue that high rates of grim death were actually an excellent reason to promote antinatalism. Collective thinking, habits, patterns, and so forth -- culture -- was no where close to finding your reasoning palatable (like in the medieval or Roman period when perhaps 25% to 33% of the area population died off from epidemics). — Bitter Crank

I should have read this first.. haha. Why wouldn't it be found palatable? What is this tendency to not find it palatable? Let me rephrase this.. If procreating more life is affecting other people, isn't this decision a political one that perpetuating cultural institutions like working to survive, and finding ways to get more comfortable and entertainment in your enviornment (what humans "do") is necessary and needed? There is are preferences here that are being willed into existence for human existence to do the whole socio-economic-cultural thing. That THIS arrangement is good. We should like it.

I wish it could be another point of view but in this era no... Remember that this world literally gave up on social basics as you said: ethics, equality, moral, etc... pursuing one goal: make the most ton of money you can doesn’t matter the rest.
You said we can think about it and change it through rationalism/ improving our criteria. Nevertheless, this depends a lot where you come from. Imagine you were born in El Salvador or Eritrea. What chances do you have to change the circumstances? I guess zero. Because your environment makes it really hard (violence, drugs, injustices, etc...) so... the first and second packages are from rich countries.
If it can be another point of view we have to the travel the “developed countries” and see what happens... but they are wasting money in social networks and fancy cars. — javi2541997

So my premises are on why we create ANY socio-economic-cultural arrangements (which means this is not dependent on contingent cultural circumstances.. it can be first world or third world or hunter-gatherer arrangements). Why do we perpetuate more people to endure having to deal with

1.)Social structures of economic, political, cultural institutions that de facto need to be entered into in order to survive, find comfort, and fill time with entertainment.

ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that our species can (from normal development and socialization):

2.) Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them.

SO rather the question is, why perpetuate any of this forced dilemma of survival, comfort-seeking, etc.? Is it not a political act to decide that more people need to live life and endure this? Are we not animals that have the double-duty of being able to reflect upon our situation and decide we don't like it BUT THEN STILL HAVE TO DO IT KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES OTHERWISE ARE DE FACTO DEATH OR MOER MISERY?

And then what? You think the world will change? — baker

That is a really good question. At least get this contrarian idea to the norm out there.

Have you seen The Truman Show? — baker

Yes, but what is the tie in?

Why are you so evangelical about this, schop1? Why isn't enough that you refuse – for moral reasons or not – to breed? — 180 Proof

I'll answer this first.. specifically on the two parts of the package mentioned in this thread..

Not breeding does not thereby negate being born. What does one do once born and is contrarian to the arrangement? Of course there is suicide. But besides this, I want to engage and evaluate the thought-process (often never looked at critically for reasons you have laid out well). Clearly other people are involved in this decision, and it is part of their value system, even if they are just following the tropes of the group-think. I want to understand the origins of this group-think, deconstruct it, show it bare for what it is, and expose the harmful political assumptions of perpetuating this package.

It isn't "justified". It is, however, like most complex dynamic systems self-justifying/reproducing. — 180 Proof

Can you explain this process in more detail?

Well, there's the old time "Be fruitful and multiply" rationalization (ideology) ... — 180 Proof

Granted, that somehow gets in the ideology.

Because mass cognitive dissonance would ensue ... and lambs would lay down with lions! — 180 Proof

Can you explain this one?

Another point of view? Sure. Won't be popular, though, never has been whenever and wherever its been practiced and promoted. We're ecologically-embedded embodied animals with millions of years of homeostatic and procreative hardwiring that a few millennia of antinatal ratiocination cannot undo or override in the vast majority of homo sapiens. — 180 Proof

But unlike eliminating waste or eating, procreation is never such an immediate need, and so the motivations are much more complex and culturally based.

I am going to come out of left field here and come at this from an anthropological/historical perspective..
I think the more "Gnostic" movements that influenced Hellenistic Judaism made for some interesting synthesis.

I think Judaism is/was a very community-oriented religion. The basic core is that God created the lower world of physical realm in order for there to be free-willed humans who will communally acknowledge him by practicing various commandments. Some of these were meant for laypeople, some meant for Cohen-priests, and some of these over time shifted from priests to lay-Israelites to make a "guard" against violating the commandments. It was very much about communal practice. One anoints the mundane things by following a particular commandment that raises it a holier level by doing it in a prescribed god-ordained way. One can argue historically, that this kind of strict communitarian version of the religion was created by community-leaders (like Ezra the Scribe) that returned from the Babylonian Exile under the auspices of the Persian Empire, as governors, reforming the previous (probably more Henotheistic) religion into a strict monotheism with an orthodox version of how the history came to be.. This was around the Great Assembly with the last "prophets" of Israel (like Haggai and Malachi).

Hellenism after the time of Alexander and his spreading of Greek-thought brought ideas such as Platonism (and later Neoplatonism), Aristotelianism (and emphasis on "intellect" as mystical), Elysian mysteries, Mithra/Isis mysteries, and Pythagoreans, and many more mystery schools and variations thereof. There was also mystical ideas from Zoroastrians, Babylonian mysteries, and Egyptian mysteries prior to Alexander, so there were other strands as well. These traditions were more of a direct, personal, inner aspiration to commune with a mystical godhead. There were elements of this from the prophetic period of Judaism in the prior generation, but the nature of these schools is lost. Was it more esoteric inward looking meditation or still rather communal? Perhaps there was an inward meditative technique.. Either way, since this prophetic tradition was considered to be no longer legitimate, there was probably an allure of the more inward-looking traditions of the Greeks and Eastern mystery schools. That is where I think Gnosticism came in. It provided Jews living in Hellenistic communities to combine their own traditions with Greek mystery schools, allowing there to be a synthesis. Notice, the Gnostic sects and practices were not usually found in Israel proper, but in the cities around the main Hellenistic centers like Alexandria, Antioch, etc. I don't think historically, the Jesus Movement was associated with these Gnostic sects which rather used the character of Jesus as a vehicle to explore Gnostic thought in general. Rather, the historical Jesus, I would say was probably a sect of Essenic/Ebionite Judaism (much closer to Pharisaic Judaism but with different interpretations of the Mosaic Law, and ideas about the End Times that were more pronounced).

Anyways, there are four basic branches of Gnosticism.. I believe it is the Thomas Tradition (based on The Book of Thomas), Sethian, Hermetic, and Valentinian.. They all have similarities and a lot of variation too.

Survival with self-reflection brings the endless loop. To know one is surviving and can do otherwise while surviving and accepting this.

Most human effort is chasing idols we think will make us happy (fame, money, youth, beauty, etc.) and distracting ourselves from the true cause of our miseries. Pascal said it best: "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone". That's what I want, above all else. Not something for nothing, but to be able to sit alone for 15 minutes without going crazy from boredom. Just be at peace with myself. — RogueAI

That is a great quote. It goes along with Schopenhauer's regarding how if existing was fully positive in character, there would be no such thing as boredom when we are doing nothing. What is the economy but a socialized manifestation of our desires for survival, comfort, and entertainment wrapped in one system? Using others and having others use us "to get things done". Then people procreating and spreading the cycle of ceaseless dissatisfaction. Can't we be still, and die out in passive peace?

Sure, but there are dragons lurking there, literally! And orcs!

The beauty of the Shire, for example, is not safe, not a given. How can you enjoy it when you know there is evil not far from it? — baker

Interestingly enough, the evils of places like Isengard and Mordor were likened to the industrialization that ruined the countryside.

Just the first article in the search, but I've read it before.
https://medium.com/literally-literary/isengard-represented-the-industrial-revolution-because-tolkien-hated-technology-6ed05430ecce#:~:text=Tolkien%20was%20opposed%20to%20modernization,dissent%2C%20during%20one%20service).

I get ya. Rather I was thinking of his descriptive imagery of the landscapes.

That's a very good question.

People think they are using Facebook and Twitter. Actually, Facebook and Twitter are using them. — Bitter Crank

Yes, good way of brining it back to social media. We just provide the data for optimization and marketing research to sell us more targeted stuff. Yay. Of course, I also meant it on a more global level. I know your leanings are sympathetic to Communism. I agree much with Marx, not in his exact analysis of economic dialectics (and its supposed end), but rather his centralizing of the "superstructure" (i.e. economy) as THE big issue that everything else revolves around. As a more existential person myself, I don't think there's a way out of being used. Society needs to replicate its cultural structures. We are its replicators. However, I am not trying to reify society.. rather I am trying to understand how the cultural "memes" instilled in people create it so that other people must be born to perpetuate the cultural memes. Sure we can say people are born because "sex feels good" but with contraception and intentional procreation, there is more going on obviously.

You know, the telegraph was invented around 1840. by 1861, Lincoln had a telegraph office installed next door to the White House in the War Department. He learned how to use the telegraph for command and control purposes pretty quickly. (The Union Army laid telegraph lines as they
moved, keeping the generals in touch with headquarters.) — Bitter Crank

Yes, and it didn't take long for cross-Atlantic soon after. Imagine fixing those electrical issues with the tools they had!

No, you didn't. But here's what happens. You said something about horses and this caused spooled memories of what I had read about horse use to unspool. I couldn't help it. Stuff has been sitting in my head for years, just waiting for the trigger to unwind it. — Bitter Crank

:lol: No problem.. You provided good context.

I don't disagree with what you're saying but I didn't say everyone had a horse. I said:

What a crazy change from a literally horse-drawn society. — schopenhauer1

But I also understand you also wanted to note other forms of transportation were even more used in urban centers and coincided with horse-drawn carriages.

Horses remained in common use in cities for hauling freight short distances until reasonably good trucks arrived in the late teens, early 1920s. — Bitter Crank

Maybe it's a bit subjective, but to me, that kind of pace from when the Model T was introduced to when the majority of people were using cars rather than horse-drawn carriages is pretty fast.

Car ownership is apparently becomes less common among young urban dwellers these days, in cities with half-ways tolerable mass transit. Cost must be a factor, as well as insurance costs and parking. — Bitter Crank

Definitely makes sense.

The restrictions we are required to follow by penalty of damnation (Ten Commandments/Noahide Law), will one day be lifted by a prophesied Messiah ala "Savior". This is the Jewish prophecy. If you believe this prophecy has been fulfilled, you're a Christian. If you believe it has not but will be, you're a Jew. There's no other avenues. Other than yours, that it's all a bunch of crazy stories and the most miraculous event or series of events are nothing but coincidences, for what other possibility is there? Aside from the IRS scammers. — Outlander

But this characterization of Jewish belief is not quite right here, which is why I interjected. I explained it previously, but let me quote myself again.

Normative Rabbinic Judaism as it was developed from Second Temple period until about the 800s CE, doesn't believe "the messiah" would abrogate Jewish law. Many thought he would be a military hero and overthrow the empires that be (i.e. Rome). The messiah was supposed to usher in the end of times, and an age of peace. The king would rule in the era and everyone would follow the commandments according to Torah if Jewish or some form of Noahide if gentile. — schopenhauer1

I guess the big misconception here is your idea of "penalty of damnation". Damnation wasn't really a conception that goes along with sin. Rather, there are various sacrifices and prayers that were to be made to atone. There was a whole Day of Atonement that Jews from all over the Mediterranean would try to migrate to Jerusalem to participate in. The idea of hell isn't much of a concept in Second Temple Judaism at all. That kind of thing probably came from Greek notions of Tartarus and Plato's idea of a soul. Rather, at this period, it was more like, there would be a general resurrection of the dead (if they were good I guess) and this would happen at the end of times with the messiah. However, Jewish belief does not wait for a messianic figure to "save" them from following the commandments. If anything they would most likely believe he would restore the commandments to its fullest glory.

Your characterization is actually Pauline theology as applied to Judaism. You are actually using Paul's ideology to continue the very misconception where I am saying he helped create in the first place which transformed the historical Jesus Movement into its own separate religion. Or at least that is one major idea in many historical circles.

No, see, there is no "Christianity" without the fulfillment of the original Jewish prophecy ie. the Old Testament (specifically the times of it). The Old Testament (Abrahamic religious root prior to Christianity/prominence of Jesus) states, we are sinners, essentially damned, and will work until we turn to dust. If they didn't at least believe in the idea of Messiah, they were ignorant of Jewish law/prophecy/their true "alleged" religion and faith. It's just that simple. They did reject Jesus, and quite so, solely on the grounds they did not believe the prophecy was fulfilled and he was a false Messiah. But that's beyond the point. Just sorting it out for those reading who are curious. But, as you say, fiction, why not argue over whether or not the Easter Bunny is light or dark pink right? — Outlander

So when I say "Christianity" here, it means from the fully developed religion that as I claimed earlier, developed further from some version of Paul's original ideas. I do not mean Jesus the historical figure in this case. The rest of what I wrote should inform you of the ideas surrounding the historical figure. Did you fully read what I wrote?

while the other, Judiasm believes, he was not the Messiah, and so all the aforementioned are still in effect, ie. the punishments for breaking the commandments/Noahide Law. — Outlander

Correct on debating fiction.. but if you're going to explain the fiction, you have to do it right..

Normative Rabbinic Judaism as it was developed from Second Temple period until about the 800s CE, doesn't believe "the messiah" would abrogate Jewish law. Many thought he would be a military hero and overthrow the empires that be (i.e. Rome). The messiah was supposed to usher in the end of times, and an age of peace. The king would rule in the era and everyone would follow the commandments according to Torah if Jewish or some form of Noahide if gentile.

There was a movement in the 1600s for another Jewish messiah claimant.. Shabbatai Tzvi who kind of copied Jesus' playbook by saying that certain laws that were prohibited are now permitted, but that was unusual and probably taken from Christianity if using Occam's Razor.

As to whether even early Jewish-Christians (the ones that knew Jesus when he was alive), even thought the law should be changed or abrogated is another misconception. There is ample evidence that the Jesus Movement was more another interpretation of how to follow Mosaic Law. Later people, mainly Paul made it more about faith in Jesus as a sacrifice, seem to be where the big turning point took place into a completely different movement. This appealed to populations around the Mediterranean that weren't Jewish. The Book of Acts and Galatians still seems to retain this tension between Paul's "innovations" and the original members (mainly James and Peter).

There is more connection perhaps with the term "Son of Man" which stems from Ezekiel's vision and the Enoch tradition where the early Biblical figure Enoch was transformed perhaps into some angelic figure and perhaps associated with the Son of Man in Ezekiel. If this is a correct interpretation, it could have implications for a tradition of some angelic connection with messianic overtones.. There are times where Jesus seems to indicate that he is like a spokesperson for the Son of Man. Anyways, carry on.

I didn't see this. I was just trying to put this in perspective. I can see the parallels.. Instead of moving a person somewhere much faster, information gets to one's device screen much faster, and instantaneously. This increases the speed of commerce and all sorts of coordination. Technology tends to speed up services, production, and other technology.

The part that actually caught my attention here was this:

__Cultures and institutions last for a while. But the people who comprise them are always being born into them-> learning them -> learning how to sustain themselves in them -> sustaining themselves -> getting ready for death. Cultures and institutions last longer than the individuals born into them, but depend on them for their continued existence. These are things that have an emergent life of their own, but require for their existence a coordination of many people who are experiencing them in very different ways.

__ Almost everything preserved in a culture is, somewhere in its ancestry, traced back to a reaction against something else. The inception of anything new will only be fully understood by the people who install it. As a fait accompli, it will be viewed differently by anyone who comes after.

__The inception of any new thing, as a reaction to something else, eventually stabilizes, developing largely according to an internal logic.

__People who are born into a culture will learn of this new thing as if it were an old thing. Part of learning your way into a culture is to learn how to survive in it. These old things, initially reactions against some past threat or excess, will now be viewed as part of the cultural landscape that one has to master, in order to get ahead, or at least tread water. — csalisbury

I am fascinated with the situatedness of being thrown into existence and what this entails. The huge superstructure in which we as individuals are interacting with. What are people's place in this? It is practically inescapable and so, are we working for it, or it for us? Are we providing more workers or is work providing more "thriving" in some Aristotlean sense. It's maddenginly intertwined, and I wouldn't blame people for being distraught from these implications.

As far as the social media and its implications...

Perhaps what it does is prevent imagination from being more important. It also makes connections more ephemoral. Communities, societies, people can be easily connected to but also easily pushed aside. Consumption of connection makes connection that much more of a disposable commodity. These are just some ideas. There have always been a contingent of people who rather interact with technology more with people (arcades, video games, tv, prior to internet for example).. but it seems people generally thrive more with more human interaction.

I beg to differ.. Within a short amount of time from when the Model T came out, I am pretty sure most people had a vehicle. What a crazy change from a literally horse-drawn society. Think about how much infrastructure related to horses was completely taken out from this shift. I get your point that things take longer to get to rural populations, and you can make an argument that it wasn't until post-WWII that truly the older system of horses was displaced (especially in places like Russian, etc) but still pretty dramatic shift in geography, time, place, etc. And of course, as you mentioned the Wright Brothers and the companies that followed for air technology.

__It might feel like this to people in every generation, but there seems something scary about what happens when having one foot in the 90s vibe slowly peters out, and more and more people simply don't know a time before this. — csalisbury

I don't know, I think the transition from horses to cars was even more dramatic. I can't even imagine someone born in 1860s, who when seeing the popularity of cars in the 1910s and 20s, saw a complete difference in landscape, transportation, pace of life, etc. Imagine someone born in 1920 who only knew of cars, and couldn't comprehend a life without self-propelled vehicles.

There's a reason why Tolkien's books are so charming. They speak to that time before fast-paced, industrialized technology. A definite romanticized vision, but there's a reason it appeals.

Then as Sartre said "hell is other people." That's part of it too. Not to say I've conquered the quest for happiness, oh no no. But I have put it in perspective, and don't blame the world for my darkness. Which helps. — GLEN willows

I tend to think our modern culture hyper-individualizes everything. You are here because of a historical trajectory. You have to "work" because you need to survive. "Work" is derived from how your sociocultural, economic, and political environment dictate it. There are many things that are actually out of your control. They can be dictated by the very conditions of existence itself even. You can perhaps choose certain things, but you can't choose to not have any choices, and you cannot choose to have choices that are not available to you. Certainly, if we wanted the status quo of creating more humans to work, get comfortable, and find entertainment, the message would be something like, "It's not the world that is the problem it is YOU. Now get on board or don't bother us". Etc. etc. and things like that.

I am not saying you can't adjust your thought-process, but I am just saying it is convenient to turn the tables on someone complaining about existential conditions to shut up and leave the regular folk alone. In other words, "to get help".

Yep. Purpose is misapplied to life itself. People live, suffer, and then they die. However, I see these kind of questions as seeing the pointlessness of keeping this going. What is great about survival, finding more comfortable states (less cold, clean environment, etc), and finding entertainment? All of this done within the context of a socioeconomic context and historical trajectory. Just one thing after the other. It's not so much "purpose" as "this is what we do". Sisyphus. Just because we "know" what we are doing while we are doing, doesn't mean it has more significance. In a way, it just amplifies the ways in which we suffer. A dog lives a happier life.

Life is just dealing with one thing after another. It was best never to have been. De facto choices are your only option.

For humans, the purpose is to survive, get comfortable, and find entertainment. Repeat. Along the way suffer various things great and small.

Which is to imply that the pessimists got the "right of it". That they see the forms accurately. And that the rest of us are deluding ourselves or just haven't seen these facts yet. — khaled

Right.

That is precisely being optimistic about the assuredness of pessimism. But you want to argue that that's not what he is doing. So he must NOT think that he is like a platonic philosopher-king seeing the forms. In which case, why is he arguing for the view? — khaled

I said here:

Maybe he just wants to give it a fair shake, being that it is often derided. I can accept any of these and still read the book. — schopenhauer1

Who would want to be a pessimist unless it was more genuine somehow? It is clearly the less enjoyable state to be in. And so you would need some special reason to adopt it such as it being "more genuine". You and Ligotti supposedly think it is not any more genuine. So why argue for it? Instead of trying to find a way out of a bad state why try to pull people into it? Unless, again, Ligotti thinks there is some reason we should be pessimists. — khaled

I think Ligotti does believe it but is pessimistic about people's reaction to it.

If truly there was no reason to adopt pessimism over optimism then Ligotti would be doing something equivalent to spreading a virus. He would be trying to promote a bad state, for no reason at all. As he supposedly doesn't think there is any more genuinity behind his view. — khaled

Well, if you think about it, pessimists are saying the world has much suffering, and so is trying to provide this aesthetic insight. So perhaps he is presenting the view but giving people an out at the last minute so people at least see the viewpoint without succumbing to complete despair.

I personally think there should be communities of catharsis for likeminded pessimists. Being born i to the world means de facto choices and natural consequences. Even suicude is part of this. Yet dont bother anyone with it right?

The problem is everything is frameworks- even the normative more optimist view of things. Its just the pessimist puts things like suffering and forced de facto negative choices as what is most important to keep in mind. They dont put other considerations above this, or rather, as a justification for this.

Altbough tbis makes me think many people dont even adopt a framework, and go through the motions of other peoes frameworks. At least think of the bigger picture.


Youd honestly have to read interviews with the author to get the answer. I gave you my ideas.

From my reading, he seemed to be fully committing to the conclusions while claiming he is not.

But if he is not fully committing to the conclusions then who would read the book? If the conclusions are not objective or more genuine or anything like that, then why would anyone want to be a pessimist? That's just self harm at that point. — khaled

Again, I think it is not being optimistic about the assuredness of pessimism. Maybe he just wants to give it a fair shake, being that it is often derided. I can accept any of these and still read the book.

Pessimists usually either cannot see what is so great about life or believe their pessimism is somehow more "genuine" and so hold onto it. If he is of the former disposition, then he should be looking for ways out. Pessimists who are pessimists simply because they cannot bring themselves to cheer up try to look for ways to cheer up, be it antidepressants or therapy as nobody has any reason to be a pessimist if they believe that the alternative is just as genuine. But only pessimists of the latter disposition, who think that there is some "self deception" involved in our common view of the world, would write a book making a case for their beliefs by showing these "deceptions". — khaled

I think this is a bit too simplistic, making a binary here where there isn't necessarily one. It may be overlooking these aspects of life, not seeing the bigger picture, etc. I like philosophical pessimism to an aesthetic understanding of the world. The philosophical pessimist puts forth this aesthetic understanding to convey the aesthetic to those who may not see it (yet). You can (I am sure derisively) liken it to the Platonic philosopher-king seeing the forms. The pessimist see it, and are trying to convey it. Thus the non-pessimist doesn't perhaps see this integration of understanding yet.

However, I can see this genuine and deception thing being useful. If the pessimist is more accurate to what is the case (especially how we suffer), then not acknowledging this suffering and working through its implications and how it characterizes life, would be a sort of ignorance, deception, or other strategy to keep away from the conclusions from pessimism. But most "modern" people at some point have these notions.. It's just that how it is put together, in the aesthetic understanding isn't there. If pessimism is the framework.. Then the traditional view of the world is also a framework.

on repeat is not a waste of time. — khaled

I think you are caught up in concrete arguments. Sometimes people just present their views, even if that also means their vacillating apathy towards them. Another way to take his style is that he knows what people will say, so he simply takes the move before other people can make them. By acknowledging the standard responses to his ideas, he has provided an understanding that he has thought of that part too.

The book is basically the above on repeat. — khaled

One can say life itself is a certain set of things on repeat.

my thoughts exactly on the book tbh. I treated Ligotti’s novel the same way one would treat a pop philosophy self help book. There’s some good ideas here and there but it’s not a philosophical work. Conspiracy against the Human Race is what I would define as “pop pessimism” insofar that I think the point of the book is that it’s just a compilation of pessimistic ideas Ligotti finds appealing and thinks everyone is too deluded to talk about. There’s some merit to that, given our Pollyanna biases and all, but there’s no real argument presented in it — Albero

Yeah, not a bad summary. I would hesitate to call this "pop" philosophy or self help. It's uses way too many primary and secondary sources to be just some whimsical extemporaneous surfacey book. There is clearly much research here. He doesn't rehash the ideas as if it was his own, he takes it directly from sources before giving his own spin on it. As for being a self help book.. I think it is an anti-self-help book. As as if you inverted self-help as self-help is almost always with an optimistic goal.

But regardless all that quote establishes is that pessimistic attitudes will be "phased out" by natural selection so to speak. The pessimists are put at a disadvantage so there will eventually be fewer and fewer of them. It does not establish that the pessimistic attitude is more genuine or more correct, only that it is more oppressed. — khaled

Ok.. I would say that pessimists aren't so much oppressed as suppressed.

It's the reason I dropped the book after a few chapters. Ligotti pretends to always take a neutral position. "Oh I am a pessimist but that is by no means the objective or correct way to view life, that would be ridiculous!" then spends a whole book framing existing as a dystopia. I don't understand what the purpose of the book is if he doesn't want to claim objectivity. — khaled

He is putting pessimism in the spotlight but not fully committing to the conclusions. He entertains the notions and presents the case but is apathetic about it. I almost want to say he is an apathetic or agnostic pessimist, if that makes sense.

About being objective.. the name of the book is The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. I'm not sure he's objective here. Rather he is presenting the case for this conspiracy, but is not fully committed or enthusiastic about pessimism even. Kind of clever actually. Being too enthusiastic would almost negate the pessimism and make him an optimist for pessimism as if someone has found salvation in one's beliefs. He's keeping with the theme.

And he does everything just short of that. For example, making fun of optimists, liking his situation to being oppressed by Big Brother, etc. What really is the purpose of the book? — khaled

I think the book itself is trying to be a non-fictional horror of sorts. He is showcasing pessimistic themes in philosophy, metaphysics, religion, and literature.

I know you don't exactly agree with this sentiment, but I think Ligotti does pretty much a "slam dunk" answer to optimistic annoyance with pessimists. There is something delightful in his more-or-less accurate depiction here.

“

In the workaday world, complainers will not go far. When someone
asks how you are doing, you had better be wise enough to reply, “I can’t
complain.” If you do complain, even justifiably, people will stop asking
how you are doing. Complaining will not help you succeed and
influence people. You can complain to your physician or psychiatrist
because they are paid to hear you complain. But you cannot complain to
your boss or your friends, if you have any. You will soon be dismissed
from your job and dropped from the social register. Then you will be left
alone with your complaints and no one to listen to them. Perhaps then
the message will sink into your head: If you do not feel good enough for
long enough, you should act as if you do and even think as if you do.
That is the way to get yourself to feel good enough for long enough and
stop you from complaining for good, as any self-improvement book can
affirm. But should you not improve, someone must assume the blame.
And that someone will be you. This is monumentally so if you are a
pessimist or a depressive. Should you conclude that life is objectionable
or that nothing matters—do not waste our time with your nonsense. We
are on our way to the future, and the philosophically disheartening or the
emotionally impaired are not going to hinder our progress. If you cannot
say something positive, or at least equivocal, keep it to yourself.
Pessimists and depressives need not apply for a position in the enterprise
of life. You have two choices: Start thinking the way God and your
society want you to think or be forsaken by all. The decision is yours,
since you are a free agent who can choose to rejoin our fabricated world
or stubbornly insist on … what? That we should mollycoddle nonpositive
173
thinkers like you or rethink how the whole world transacts its business?
That we should start over from scratch? Or that we should go extinct?
Try to be realistic. We did the best we could with the tools we had. After
all, we are only human, as we like to say. Our world may not be in
accord with nature’s way, but it did develop organically according to our
consciousness, which delivered us to a lofty prominence over the
Creation. The whole thing just took on a life of its own, and nothing is
going to stop it anytime soon. There can be no starting over and no going
back. No major readjustments are up for a vote. And no melancholic
head-case is going to bad-mouth our catastrophe. The universe was
created by the Creator, damn it. We live in a country we love and that
loves us back. We have families and friends and jobs that make it all
worthwhile. We are somebodies, not a bunch of nobodies without names
or numbers or retirement plans. None of this is going to be overhauled
by a thought criminal who contends that the world is not doubleplusgood
and never will be. Our lives may not be unflawed—that would deny us a
better future to work toward—but if this charade is good enough for us,
then it should be good enough for you. So if you cannot get your mind
right, try walking away. You will find no place to go and no one who
will have you. You will find only the same old trap the world over.
Lighten up or leave us alone. You will never get us to give up our hopes.
You will never get us to wake up from our dreams. We are not
contradictory beings whose continuance only worsens our plight as
mutants who embody the contorted logic of a paradox. Such opinions
will not be accredited by institutions of authority or by the middling run
of humanity. To lay it on the line, whatever thoughts may enter your
chemically imbalanced brain are invalid, inauthentic, or whatever
dismissive term we care to hang on you, who are only “one of those
people.” So start pretending that you feel good enough for long enough,
174
stop your complaining, and get back in line. If you are not as strong as
Samson—that no-good suicide and slaughterer of Philistines—then get
loaded to the gills and return to the trap. Keep your medicine cabinet and
your liquor cabinet well stocked, just like the rest of us. Come on and
join the party. No pessimists or depressives invited. Do you think we are
morons? We know all about those complaints of yours. The only
difference is that we have sense enough and feel good enough for long
enough not to speak of them. Keep your powder dry and your brains
blocked. Our shibboleth: “Up the Conspiracy and down with
Consciousness.”

Related to this but not the same.. I was just thinking:
When someone is put into existence, they are not given any choice about the choices presented to them in the first place. There are more-or-less natural consequences for those who choose certain choices. There are also elements of "using" and "abusing" the system which one can follow but then would be either objectively found lacking or subjectively feel guilty. Either way, that is another choice one cannot have been able to prevent in the first place. There is no escape from the givens of life. Even the choice of suicide falls into this paradox.

Doesn't he actually address that here??

But to express with any adequacy a sense of the uselessness
of everything, a nonlinguistic modality would be needed, some effusion
out of a dream that amalgamated every gradation of the useless and
wordlessly transmitted to us the inanity of existence under any possible
conditions. Indigent of such means of communication, the uselessness of
all that exists or could possibly exist must be spoken with a poor
potency. Not unexpectedly, no one believes that everything is useless, and with
good reason. We all live within relative frameworks, and within those
frameworks uselessness is far wide of the norm. A potato masher is not
useless if one wants to mash

potatoes. For some people, a system of being that includes an afterlife of
eternal bliss may not seem useless. They might say that such a system is
absolutely useful because it gives them the hope they need to make it
through this life. But an afterlife of eternal bliss is not and cannot be
absolutely useful simply because you need it to be. It is part of a relative
framework and nothing beyond that, just as a potato masher is only part
of a relative framework and is useful only if you need to mash potatoes.
Once you had made it through this life to an afterlife of eternal bliss, you
would have no use for that afterlife. Its job would be done, and all you
would have is an afterlife of eternal bliss—a paradise for reverent
hedonists and pious libertines. What is the use in that? You might as
well not exist at all, either in this life or in an afterlife of eternal bliss.
Any kind of existence is useless. Nothing is self-justifying. Everything is
justified only in a relativistic potato-masher sense.
There are some people who do not get up in arms about potato-masher
relativism, while other people do. The latter want to think in terms of
absolutes that are really absolute and not just absolute potato mashers.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a real problem with a potato-masher
system of being. Buddhists have no problem with a potato-masher
system because for them there are no absolutes. What they need to
realize is the truth of “dependent origination,” which means that
everything is related to everything else in a great network of potato
mashers that are always interacting with one another. So the only
problem Buddhists have is not being able to realize that the only
absolutely useful thing is the realization that everything is a great
network of potato mashers. They think that if they can get over this
hump, they will be eternally liberated from suffering. At least they hope
they will, which is all they really need to make it through this life. In the
Buddhist faith, everyone suffers who cannot see that the world is a
MALIGNANTLY USELESS potato-mashing network. However, that does not make Buddhists superior to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It only means they have a different
system for making it through a life where all we can do is wait for musty
shadows to call our names when they are ready for us. After that
happens, there will be nobody who will need anything that is not
absolutely useless. Ask any atheist.