“ you are saving someone from existing”. No, you are not saving anyone from anything. It’s a lie. You have saved exactly zero people. Your imaginary “someone” is a no one. It’s nothing. — NOS4A2

A guy buys all the parts for a gun, but it's not a gun yet. He intends to use it to kill when he's finished. He puts the gun together and kills someone. The gun didn't exist until he made it. Should someone not try to prevent him before he makes the parts into a gun?

No, I’m questioning the absurdity that you have in mind some person that you’re protecting. No need to twist what I say, especially while accusing someone of sophistry. There are plenty of reasons to not have children that need not involve some fake ethical principle. — NOS4A2

Yes plenty of reason, that go into the principle. I did not say I had someone in mind that I was protecting. You ignored what I said and made your own (what a sophist does):

ou are sparing someone from life by not having something that can potentially be had. No, you are saving someone from existing, not saving a particular already existing person. But you know that and now you want to change the argument.. — schopenhauer1

It goes without saying that people tend to pass their ideologies to their children. So what? The topic is coronavirus. — NOS4A2

Yes indeed, but you seemed to be off topic too ranting about your anti-liberal/ pro whatever brand of conservatism. I'm leaving this conversation now.. but if you want to discuss how your sophistry is bullshit, we can continue on my ideology thread.. I'll leave it to you.. Whatever troll thing you answer to this, I will not respond on this thread.

You’re speaking about protecting figments of your imagination and pretending you’re being good for doing so. That’s demented. — NOS4A2

You are questioning that people can make decisions that have future outcomes? And you are questioning that by preventing something now, you can prevent a future outcome? Please. This is Sophistic bullshit. And you still sidestepped the actual topic at hand that cons and libs just want to procreate their ideologies on behalf of other people, for them.

I’m almost certain that antinatalist rationalization is merely excuse-making for those too scared to have children. Don’t have children, sure, but don’t pretend you’re saving the soul of a child who will never exist anyways. — NOS4A2

You didn't even directly answer the charge against ideologies, ego-stroking and all of that. And yes, a potential to have a child is one that could exist. This lateral move into trying to question the idea of potential realities from happening, is simply bad philosophy. If outcomes don't happen from previous actions, step in front of a fast moving car and see what happens.. I mean, we can't predict what could happen, right? You are sparing someone from life by not having something that can potentially be had. No, you are saving someone from existing, not saving a particular already existing person. But you know that and now you want to change the argument.. The argument is that progressives and cons want to perpetuate their demented ideologies into yet a new generation.. Again, you're both wrong.

I'll repeat the charges:
If you think "liberal innovations" are bad.. So are "free-market capitalism". Antinatalism scoffs at both of these as FORCING more people into the world in the first place by having more children. A pox on both your houses. Both liberals and conservatives feel entitled to force their ideologies on yet another generation to live out their demented ideas about ways-of-life.. Oh but great, if the child doesn't like it they can just go kill themselves! What a foolish unsettling system all ideologies are and people who thus create more progeny to have to live out their ideological abstractions. Its all using people for an ideology. Its all ego-stroking thinking YOUR child MUST be created to experience life. All of you can go bugger off with your ideologies and forcing others to live them, honestly.

Yah I just looked at the excerpt from google and posted it. I should have looked at the article. Not saying I agree though. looking for other information, something more current, but there isn't much on the subject so far. But I definitely don't agree that procreation is not instinctual. — SonOfAGun

:rofl:
You're not going to find much because it's not true.. But thank you for helping me prove my point. It is a common misconception though if it is any consolation. That article really dissected that well too, how people perceive things that way.

Oh mine as well put the rest of the article here too. He goes on to say:

3.2.1 Parents are not happier than non-parents
All respondents rated their general feelings of happiness on a seven-point scale. Comparison of
the scores of couples with children and of couples without children revealed no striking
differences. Non-parents seem slightly happier, but the difference fails to meet the 95 % level of
significance (see Table 1).
One could object that this outcome is possibly influenced by a tendency of childless
respondents to rate more happiness than they really feel. We checked this objection by testing the
hypothesis that happy non-parents show a higher score on the General Index of Complaints (see
below) than happy parents do. This check is based on the assumption that frustration of a
fundamental human need gives rise to both feelings of unhappiness and psychosomatic disorders,
the avowal of which is more susceptible to rationalizations by the respondent in the first case than
in the latter. This control hypothesis was rejected; the happiness scores of non-parents turned out
to be no less liable than those of the parents.
3.2.2 Parents do not have fewer psychosomatic complaints than non-parents
The same holds for psychosomatic complaints. The questionnaire contained 85 questions
concerning various complaints such as headache. nervousness, frequent diarrhea, feelings of
being unnatural, depression, etc. On the basis of these questions a General Index of Complaints
was constructed which turned out to be highly related to the clinical diagnose of neurasthenia.
This index was compared for parents and non-parents, but a statistical relationship could not be
demonstrated.
3.2.3 Parents feel less healthy than non-parents do
The questionnaire also contained a rating scale for subjective health feeling. Contrary to the
predictions of the procreation-instinct theory parents turn out to feel less healthy than non-parents
(see Table 1). More than the fulfillment of an undeniable need, parenthood seems to be a tiring
job.
3.2.4 Non-parents do not face a poorer life when growing older
The relation between childlessness and happiness is not affected by age. The same holds for the
relationship between childlessness and psychosomatic complaints. Age does affect the relation
with subjective health feeling: Non-parents in the age of 55 to 65 are feeling significantly better
than parents.
Ruut Veenhoven 3 Is there an innate need for children?
3.2.5 Non-parents report no more doubts about the meaning of their life than parents
Analysis of the answers to a question about the meaningfulness of one's life did not reveal a
difference between parents and non-parents. No relationship could be found within the different
age groups, nor could a stronger tendency towards such a relation be demonstrated in the older
age groups.
The same holds for anxiety about old age and death. Non-parents do not seem to expect a
more problematic and lonesome end of their life. On the contrary, older parents report more
feelings of anxiety concerning this subject, though the difference hardly reaches the 95 % level of
significance. There is no evidence for the notion that non-parents feel more isolated in the later
years of life. Neither do non-parents report a lower degree of marital happiness nor show a higher
degree of problems in social interaction.
3.2.6 Procreation-instinct theory is applicable neither to men nor to women
On the basis of folk theory we might suppose that the results mentioned above hide a major
difference between men and women, with women being especially prone to negative effects of
childlessness. This hypothesis was tested, but it received little support. Childless married women
revealed no less happiness than mothers and reported neither more psychosomatic complaints.
nor more doubt about meaning of life. Likewise they reported neither less subjective health
feeling, nor more anxiety about old age and dying. They did not report less marital satisfaction. In
all age groups a tendency for non-parents to report a higher state of well-being could be observed,
but none of them reached the 95 % level of significance. For men they did in two instances,
Married male non-parents feel more healthy and report a higher level of marital satisfaction.
Finally we might suppose in the basis of the procreation-instinct theory that pregnant
married women are happier than non-pregnant married women. pregnancy being at least partial
gratification of the maternal urge. Twenty-two married respondents were pregnant at the time of
the interview. They were less happy than non-pregnant married female respondents. This result
fits in with the findings of Klein et al. (1950) and Tobin (1957). Again, a derivation from the
procreation-instinct theory fails to find empirical support. — IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN? Ruut Veenhoven European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501

Are you kidding? That whole article is saying that the idea that there is an innate instinct to procreate is actually wrong. Actually, thank you for providing this.. More evidence that procreation is not an instinct. Look at what the article actually says :lol: :

He says right here:

Why this theory is wrong
This theory seems plausible at first glance, but looking at it more closely we can see that it is
based on simplifications and that its predictions turn out to be faulty. We will examine the
propositions mentioned above successively.
3.1 Animals have no 'desire for offspring'
It is true that almost all animals produce offspring, but it is probably not true that this behavior is
determined by an innate desire for offspring. It is highly improbable that animals are motivated
by such conscious wishes for long-term effects. It is far more probable that the reproduction
behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual
drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal
behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced
as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational
characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and
can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.
These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are
governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for
offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation.
3.2 Neither have human beings an innate need for children
Contrary to animals, human beings are capable of pursuing conscious long-term goals. Many
human beings are conscious of a desire for children and work to have them, but this behavior is
not necessarily dictated by an innate need. Human behavior is seldom directly governed by
instincts. Again and again the ever-present influence of environmental circumstances and
learning has been demonstrated. It is improbable that they would not influence the procreation
behavior. In addition human instincts are seldom linked to such specific patterns of behavior. As
far as instinctual tendencies in human beings may be assumed they pertain to vague preferences
which are manifested in very different forms of behavior. Reasoning along this line we could
hypothesize that human beings have instinctual needs for security, love, esteem and
meaningfulness (Maslow, 1964). These needs might be realized in parenthood as well as in a
cloister life, in a political career as well as in an intimate interaction with friends, etc.
The specific form in which the individual chooses to realize his instinctual needs is
probably highly affected by his experience and by the alternatives the socio-cultural environment
offers him. It makes more sense to look at parenthood as one of these alternatives than to
postulate an innate and compelling desire for children.
The idea of an instinctual desire for children is not only a theoretical simplification but
also fails to meet empirical support. If there were such a built-in need the desire for children
should be universal, but this prediction is not confirmed by facts. Millions of people decide
spontaneously for voluntary childlessness. In Canada 5 % of all married couples opt for
childlessness (Veevers, 1973). In the Netherlands 15 % of the couples married in the last few
years intend to forego parenthood (NIDI, 1974). This is not a temporary modern whim, but a
Ruut Veenhoven 2 Is there an innate need for children?
phenomenon that has also been observed in earlier times, In medieval Western European society,
for example, a major part of the population remained childless.
These facts, however, offer no decisive evidence against the procreation-instinct theory. It
could be agreed that all these childless people pay a heavy price for their choice, that the
violation of such a compelling need makes people unhappy -- in any case less happy than people
who follow this need. Here we arrive at propositions 4, 5 and 6 mentioned earlier. To test these
propositions a secondary analysis was made of the data from an investigation concerning the
health and the life circumstances among a representative sample of the adult population of the
Netherlands, As we will see below these data give no support to the predictions of the
procreation-instinct theory. — IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN? Ruut Veenhoven European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501

Again, you raise interesting questions. — Tzeentch

I am glad you at least find them interesting :smile: .

The negative aspects of life seem to create reasons to not have children, while the good aspects of life are ignored. I am not convinced of the soundness of that. — Tzeentch

This raises a good point that philosopher David Benatar has also raised. The negative aspects of life is where the moral issue lies, not the good aspects. So that is actually the basis perhaps where most conflict regarding antinatalism lies- how much weight to put on negative experiences?

Benatar's argument (which I agree with mainly), says that preventing a negative is always a good thing, even if there is no one there to know it. However, not experiencing a positive is only a bad thing if there is actually a person who exists that is being deprived of that good thing. One thought experiment he uses is aliens. If we learned that aliens on Mars lived tortuous, sad lives, we most likely would pity them and feel bad. If we learned that aliens don't exist at all on Mars, we don't really feel devastated or empathetic about all the happiness the non-existent aliens are missing. So, that intuition can tell us that there is greater moral weight on preventing negative (it is always good), and not good or bad if there is no person who actually exists to feel good.

People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices. — SonOfAGun

Will they? I've been debating this for a while. People are not like other animals- we CAN deliberate. Some people due to personality, culture, and maybe genetic predisposition PREFER a certain outcome, but that does not mean they MUST follow-through and do it. In fact, even the very preference itself can be probably replaced with another one, being that it is in fact a preference, not a biological necessity. Going to the bathroom is indeed instinctual, physical pleasure is instinctual, feeling scared with a sudden fall is instinctual. However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference, like wanting a car. I know it sounds weird because we have reified preference into biology because it seems like procreation itself is a biological drive, but it is not. We are playing pop-science and using other animals as examples, that is not our condition.

talk to me again when you and everyone you know are starving to death. — SonOfAGun

The descendants lives are spared any suffering by not being born. The people who are living have to deal with it, not use people, and break the very cycle of suffering they themselves are dealing with by being born themselves.

I said "your descendants" you said "the next generation". My children are one thing, my sister's and cousin's children are another. — unenlightened

Okay, so we both agree government-sponsered antinatalist policies would be immoral. We both seem to agree that a personal decision to prevent one's own progeny will prevent suffering for one's own descendants. You are correct that it won't prevent a whole "generation" because that would include all people's progeny. However, antinatalism can be at the margins as well. More people who don't procreate means at least those descendants are spared life (bad-decision making, suffering, etc.). So the more people who don't, the more is spared (the alternative of suffering, possible bad-decisions, and dealing with life, etc.).

You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there. — SonOfAGun

Why should anyone have children? It is all Draconian- making decisions on others behalf. If you say because some hypothetical "majority" like it.. I will have words.

No we cannot. You can maintain your personal innocence, that's all. Whatever bad happens won't happen to your descendants, if you don't have any. — unenlightened

How is it we cannot? In your next sentence you just said how we can prevent the next generation's bad decisions by not having them.

I asked my kids if they are suffering because they know there is suffering in the world. They said, "No. There is also happiness in the world that wouldn't be realized if there wasn't some suffering". Smart kids. — Harry Hindu

That makes no sense actually. Do you pine over the happiness not being realized by the non-existent aliens on Mars?

Without the younger generation, who is going to pay for your medication and hospital visits when you are old and retired? You end up running into the same problem China is after the implementation of their "one-child" policy.

Solution: Coronavirus. — Harry Hindu

That is precisely the thinking that gets us into this position. You would be using the suffering of the next generation (by having them knowing the world contains some suffering) to try to mitigate what is happening currently, thus continuing the cycle. Not a good policy if you want to end the cycle itself. Coronavirus is exactly the kind of thing you would bringing on to a new generation.

It's far more serious than that. There are potentially uncountable generations of future off-spring, one of whom might be the fuckwit politician that sterilises the planet. But there is no escape from the responsibility, because not procreating can deprive the world of that planet sterilising fuckwit, and result in a thousand more generations of suffering humanity. Life is a risky business. — unenlightened

I think you are agreeing then. It is a choice to not procreate, thus choosing to not have a possible fuckwit politician that might force people not to procreate :razz:. But anyways, the point is, even the non-Draconian, individual way we do things is a Draconian decision made on ANOTHER person's behalf. It is saying "I think such and such, therefore another person should live out such and such". That's not great either. Then, we think that it's just people's individual decisions. We worship at the alter of personal decision-making. We don't factor in our procreational decision-making ourselves that the progeny will also likely make poor decisions. But I get it, you can always say it's THEIR FAULT. But if you know BEFOREHAND that poor decisions is a possible (even likely?) factor in the progeny's life, why wouldn't that be considered as well instead of post-facto blaming the person who made the bad decision? We can prevent it full stop.

Those are very interesting questions, and exactly the type of questions that should be asked when educating people on procreation. However, one must appreciate that people may come to different answers than you. — Tzeentch

I agree, and again I don't think it should be forced. But as I said to unenlightened, ironically, not forcing a ban on procreation lets some people force other people into living life (and dealing with it). The parent is making that decision for a new person, lest they kill themselves if they don't like it. The big assumption here is that living is either good, necessary, or preferable for another person under the right circumstances as long as a person already living thinks it is so. Is that really the right assumption to have though?

I'd rather it was their own decision though than that of some fuckwitted philosopher or politician. — unenlightened

That I agree with. I am not for Draconian measures that other people force. It is up to the person, not the state. However, you realize the irony that this particular decision affects a WHOLE other person's life (literally, in the strongest most literal way possible). That is almost a Catch-22.

“Liberal innovations” such as Keynesian economics and the modern welfare state. — NOS4A2

If you think "liberal innovations" are bad.. So are "free-market capitalism". Antinatalism scoffs at both of these as FORCING more people into the world in the first place by having more children. A pox on both your houses. Both liberals and conservatives feel entitled to force their ideologies on yet another generation to live out their demented ideas about ways-of-life.. Oh but great, if the child doesn't like it they can just go kill themselves! What a foolish unsettling system all ideologies are and people who thus create more progeny to have to live out their ideological abstractions. Its all using people for an ideology. Its all ego-stroking thinking YOUR child MUST be created to experience life. All of you can go bugger off with your ideologies and forcing others to live them, honestly.

So this DIRECTLY gets at points I'm making in my thread about society being an ideology. Why do you think SOME people should procreate in the first place? I get the fact that this hypothetical thought experiment is about reckless parenting, basically. We want "responsible" parents rather than bad ones to ensure a "better" upbringing. Now I am going to question why ANY parent should procreate a child in the first place. What are "we" (collectively as humans), trying to do by having MORE people in the first place? We know that life has suffering. We know that a lot of it is tedium. We know that we basically survive due to certain instincts. What do we really want new people to GET OUT OF life? It seems pointless to keep continuing more people and making decisions that they should live on THEIR BEHALF. If you think life is so precious and great.. go live it yourself (and then see experience all the downsides too you don't even consider in you Pollyanna math about hope and society getting better, etc.).. But DON'T make the bad move to then think that YOUR evaluation DESERVES to affect OTHER PEOPLE by procreating them thus making THEM DEAL WITH life because of YOUR decision.

I wanted to own a home and have money in the bank before having children. I thought a woman should be a full-time homemaker. Those are very traditional values that were strongly promoted by public education. I associate these values with democracy. But having the ideology of democracy was not the reason for having children. The reason for intentionally having children was to fully experience being a woman. — Athena

So, people think they live in a vacuum. You live in a SOCIETY. You probably birthed in a hospital, with doctors and nurses and care units. You probably knew that your children were going to enter some sort of school system, some kind of job. You probably knew that, just like you wanted money in the bank, it would be feasible in Western/"modern" societies to do so, and to work for it. You probably also realize comfort regulation and entertainment is a thing, and whatever current society you are in (Western/modern in this case) that is also handled a certain way. No matter what individualized "microdecision" you make within that broader context, it's still about the same in a SOCIETY. Thus, by procreating the child you DID know that you were perpetuating the ways of a society.. I'm talking on a macro-level.. not small ones like living on a commune vs. a single family home or any bullshit like that, because at the end it is still a SOCIETY with the same needs. Having more people FORCES a way-of-life onto another person.

I understand the political ideologies but question the value of the anthropological and sociological use of the word. I am not sure it is helpful to make a word mean anything you want it to mean? Of course, tribes have their method of survival and at some stage, they will come up with stories, but an idealogy? I am not sure that is a good use of the word? I don't think believing we came out of the center of the earth is equal to the more formal political ideologies. — Athena

That's the POINT. That even the idea of bringing more people into a society IS an ideology- the ideology of thinking people SHOULD BE playing the game of LIFE ITSELF. So, that is the POINT of my thesis- that even something this BASIC IS AN IDEOLOGY.

What? It doesn't matter if it is apple or oranges? Try making an orange pie. :lol: Aren't we arguing the difference between dealing with reality or being lost in abstract ideas? Perhaps that is what is wrong today. People willing to kill for their religion/ideology and blind to reality. — Athena

No, the goal here is to argue whether thinking it is okay to bring more people into the world IS itself an ideology.

And I did not say sex drove procreation I said the instinct to survive is what drove the act of sex — LuckilyDefinitive

If you asked a million people why they had sex, I doubt they would say "the instinct to survive". You'd have to majorly qualify that.

I said that preference is NOT derived from imperical science. Yet you debate that human procreation is preferential. — LuckilyDefinitive

Preferences are majorly studied in psychology and neuroscience. What are you talking about? Also, what do you mean "derived from" empirical science? Nothing is derived from empirical science.

I brought up "empirical science" because you seemed to object based on there being no control study on procreation being a preference vs. an instinct. That's how we got on this topic and why I immediately questioned your Freud mention as a criteria based on your objection which was to use empirical science. That is how we got there- nothing with what I was saying originally.

Also preference is most definitely not a thing derived from imperical science and that is the stance you are debating for. — LuckilyDefinitive

Preferences are not "derived" from empirical science- they are just a fact of human deliberation. People have choices and they choose certain things based on personal factors including surroundings, culture, personality, etc.

So I'm confused as to why I'm being told to provide evidence of my stance when yours is the more lofty reasoning? — LuckilyDefinitive

Well, I asked you a legitimate question based on you objection- what is your criteria for testing for instinct vs. preference? That makes sense being you stated an objection.

The biological need for information to survive only happens through new life. — LuckilyDefinitive

I'll allow this, though odd choice of phrasing..

People have sex to create new life. — LuckilyDefinitive

Ok...

All I'm saying is if modern theory of evolution is to be believed then instinct is what sex most likely what deove procreation, even for us humans. — LuckilyDefinitive

I don't understand this statement in its current form. It seems like you're saying is "sex drove procreation". Well, yes sex is the mechanism for procreation. But we can choose to have sex. And nowadays, we can choose to have or not have children even if sex takes place.

Even if you were to say "sex is instinctual" you must say how that is.. Is it the pleasure of sex that makes it "instinctual"? But the bigger question is, if sex is instinctual, that does not answer the question whether procreation is instinctual. There is a big difference there.

Also, to actually "quote" something you click and drag over a text in a post and then let go. Once you let go, you will see a "Quote" button display. Click the Quote button to quote the text.

Freud's theory most definitely applies to this discussion. Nature verses nuture is applicable directly to whether or not ,nature vs nurture, is what drives human procreation. — LuckilyDefinitive

Besides the fact that Freudian theory is almost universally derided as the most unscientific modern theories due to its limited subjects (middle class Victorian women mainly), and for the very fact that it didn't include anything scientific in its studies (no controls, no experiments, etc.)...Its usually considered interesting literary thought. As a Schopenhauerian, I can go the low road and say he pretty much ripped off Schopenhauer.. but I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt on that (which is a lot of benefit).

1) You haven't proven how Freudian theory applies to nature versus nurture in what drives human procreation.

2) You haven't provided any other criteria besides eluding to Freudian theory for how procreation is instinctual.

There is the Freudian theory for starters. — LuckilyDefinitive

You're trolling if you meant to not quote anything.. And Freudian theory certainly doesn't fall under the empirical evidence you seem to want.

No one can state that procreation as it pertains to humans is definitively preferential or instinctual. How could that be proven without being able to experience both separately then at the same time. Does that make sense? Much like a control study. — LuckilyDefinitive

What would be your criteria that this is an instinct? Also, please use the quote tool; otherwise I have no idea if you answered me. You can use the "Reply" button or highlight the text in a post and click the "Quote" button that pops up.

How can anyone state that definitively if we have never experienced a life only lived through purity of one or the other? — LuckilyDefinitive

I don't get your question. Prove to me, procreation is anything but a preference.. I've already gave some reasons for why it is preference, not instinctual. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. All you've stated is the obvious- other animals procreate from instinct, not humans. Even though humans are animals, we are also different kinds of animals.

If the need to procreate is only driven by want why are we not the only species on the planet that procreates. Since it would require the ability to preconcieve to formulate a want then nothing else should mate according to your logic, correct? — LuckilyDefinitive

No, the "need" to procreate in humans is (actually) driven by want.

Having a child at its core is procreation, and what is procreation if not a species DNA instinctual need to pass on a means in which to survive. Just because we have the means to live in a way where basics for survival are an after thought; does not mean that they were never and are not natural motums of our existence. — LuckilyDefinitive

You are conflating procreation with actual instincts. An actual instinct is the feeling that you must go to the bathroom. An actual instinct is hunger. An actual instinct is the surprise you get when someone pops out of nowhere, or you fall from a ledge. Wanting a child is a preference. I really really want a particular brand of car.. Does that mean a preference is an instinct? Only if you mean that any "want" or preference is an instinct can you make that argument.. But that would be like saying "natural" and "synthetic" have no distinction since everything is technically "from nature" and the big bang. Clearly, there is a distinction between a preference that someone wants and instinct.

Also, let's make the distinction between the physical pleasure of sex and the preference or possible outcome of the procreation of new people. There is a major difference.

That does not ring true to me. Perhaps you could describe it more precisely? Exactly what would a common ideology look like? — Athena

Any society needs at least three things: A way to survive (hunting and industrial trade would be the two sides of the spectrum I guess), maintenance/comfort regulation (humans generally regulate environment- everything from temperature adjustments to cleaning their ass), entertainment (big brain animals like ourselves generally need to occupy mind if not generally occupied with survival/maintenance activities.. Mind you all three things can be done simultaneously.. its not all cut-and-dry.. You clean the carcass of a deer, while laughing at your neighbor, and cleaning up the mess from the deer (survival, entertainment, and maintenance all at once). You turn down the heat, write up some document for work, while you laugh at a text, and sweep up your kitchen (survival, entertainment, maintenance all at once).

All societies have some way of life (they can be radically different even). It doesn't matter. whatever way -of-life there is (and I don't care if it is back-to-the-landers in the middle of the forest in some remote commune or the most straight-laced 2.5 kids in a suburb of regular heartland Western world).. the fact that some new person will live a way of life and have to maneuver that way of life will occur. The fact that any new life has to maneuver and "deal with" to survive, maintain, and entertain lest they die is an ideology in itself.. It doesn't matter what way of life (as repeated again).

I don't think those are universals. They are common but not universal and there is nothing sacred about our secular marriages. — Athena

See SURVIVAL, MAINTENANCE, ENTERTAINMENT above (aka what is needed in big-brained, linguistically-based, conceptually-based life forms such as ourselves... see Homo sapiens).

Why is it important for Christians to make everyone one of "them"? Why does one society assimilate others and another society keep itself pure of those others? Can we be sure those Jews forced to be Christians are really Christians or are they faking it and do they threaten "us"? I think you have locked onto the wrong premiums. Reproduction is not the only way to increase our numbers. — Athena

Not about one type of society versus another.. Only about having to navigate society (survival, maintenance, entertainment) in general.

Likewise, in human (and possibly other) societies, groups, "tribes", and so on and so forth, it's not reducible solely to the desire to physically reproduce (e.x. a non-violent community of monks or nuns practicing celebacy, or a community of artists, musicians, or athletes which serves more of a creative purpose than a "surivial" purpose would be examples. — IvoryBlackBishop

It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born). It is such an assent (YES!) to society (life) that they want OTHER PEOPLE to live it and will make the decision that they should do so on their behalf.

Do you think that would have always described what is important? — Athena

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my argument to mean only this society should be questioned. My point is questioning if any society should be perpetuated, whether new/old, this way or that way. All societies are going to have the same basic ways-of-life (that is to say a way to survive, maintain environs, and entertain). It is not whether this specific society should be perpetuated vs. another type of society. That is where there is a mismatch of dialogue here.

The purpose of mythology is to transmit social agreements and transition youth into adults who are valued by the community. The children just happen without planning. I know you think children are the result of planning, but for how many centuries has that been true? — Athena

It might not be planned at a specific incidence, but the consequences were known and the cultural milieu was set up to accommodate what was a well-known fact regarding procreation (thus marry early, have a ceremony, make it sacred, make it tied to money and property, etc. etc.). Anyways, I don't want to veer off into feminist politics or gender roles, this is about society en totale, NOT specific cultural practices per se.

As far as youth and education, and enculturation, the question is why are we making new people? What is important to carrying out society to a new generation at all? The answer is harder than you might initially think. It's a basic question, but it's not a straightforward answer.

Because we believe it is best and will mean a good life for the members of our society, but as I said we have not perpetuated the ideology of our forefathers. We stopped using education to transmit our culture and began preparing our youth for a technological society with unknown values. Today what the young think is best is not what we wanted in the past. I absolutely hate the new fade of saying "perfect" to everything! That is so superficial and frivolous. I find business practices today, intolerable. I see a serious lack of individual liberty and power and this is not "perfect". This is surely off-topic, but maybe you can understand why I find it hard to go along with your train of thought? — Athena

While I agree on many points, indeed this would be another conversation, as interesting as it is.

I think you must be young because you are unaware of a dramatic cultural change. The US has become what it defended its democracy against. That means all those people who defended our way of life, died for nothing. That bothers me a lot. — Athena

Again the question is about why society should be perpetuated. Why we bring more people into the world, and spread THE (not a specific) brand of "society" (any way of life, not a specific one).

You skipped my question of how is an ideology transmitted. — Athena

Well, this thread is about specifically how society is perpetuated by procreation. I think we can move to that question after we discuss this a bit more.

Are words identical to concepts? I'm inclined to think not, but I don't have any evidence. And if they aren't identical what makes them different? — Aleph Numbers

Perhaps words need help from other words along with pictures in the mind. If a word is thought about, you probably get a quick picture in your mind.. Prudence might instantly bring up images of someone you know or associate with having prudence, but asked to describe it, you get other words either synonyms or strung together to convey same meaning. So depending on context a concept is a picture in the mind (all at once), or a word that is interrelated with other words.

I must congratulate you on her tenacity. I will agree some people have children to perpetuate an ideology. Now once the child is born, what do they do to prepare the child to perpetuate that ideology?

In societies where people with a different ideology take control of resources and enforce a different way of living, it is devasting to the aboriginal people, leading to shattered lives, broken families and alcoholism. Are people who do this to other people guilty of a wrong? How important are our ideologies to the good life? — Athena

Hold on though, you are jumping off on an interesting but slight tangent. If we can make the argument that perpetuating society is like perpetuating a game, and each new person born is a new participant in the game, why should more people play this game?

Let's say the pitfalls of the game are at its most severe, death. Let's say its a continuum from there.. other pitfalls are the sufferings of all kinds throughout existence (pain, discomfort, disappointment, awkwardness, broken-heartedness, anger, boredom, etc).

Let's say the goal of this game is something like "self-actualization". The levels are things like survival-in-an-economic setting (i.e. employment), maintaining your comfort levels (cleaning, regulating surrounding temperatures, consuming preferred items, etc.). and entertaining yourself (keep your mind occupied, try to find meaning in some task or goal, etc.).

With all this in mind, why does this ideology of abiding by this well-trodden way of life (society) need to be perpetuated to yet another person in the first place? Let's not even jump into what kind of society, let's just assume any society needs ways of survival, maintaining, entertainment- its the game of life right? Why more players in this game in the first place? What is it that this game must be continued? We don't have a good answer, and its more complicated and less necessary than a stock answer like "its instinct". Its not in humans. As you admitted, its a choice, and thus a brand, and thus a sort of ideology. But why are we preferring to perpetuate this ideology? Its self-justifying and when we get to the root of the reasons, it doesn't even add up. What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person.

the ones who get shafted are the middle class who do earn pay but they get squeezed a little. — BitconnectCarlos

Understatement. If there is an emergency or underlying condition, they get squeezed a lot until they are out of the middle class.

If there was a system that randomly killed 1 jobless person out of 10, and of the working population 6% of people are jobless. Would you be ok with that just because the percentage is low and you have a job (so you're safe)?

People like to obfuscate the moral dimension here but not being able to afford healthcare means people die from otherwise treatable diseases. — Benkei

American healthcare is like feudalism.. Your Lord provides you the ability to access healthcare. If you cross the Lord and get fired, you will suffer the consequences. From what I recall, the system developed after WWII whereby it was mainly the company's job to provide healthcare instead of perhaps better wages as a way to keep people on board (and perhaps increase bottom line)?

I see two things going on, Benkei. 1) Americans who "like" the system currently haven't really had a chance to see the hefty prices of a real emergency at a hospital.. Once they see bills upwards to the 10s of thousands of dollars, they might change their tune.. until then, their $20 copays and $300 premiums seem OK enough for them. 2) It's called cognitive dissonance. Even if some people do get these hefty bills, they can't picture what such a large overhaul would look like, and get scared. Also, if they grew up with "rugged individualism" they might say ridiculous things like "you just want things for free" or "doctors need incentives" and things like this.

The "wet" (or live) trade in wild animals for food is pretty bad idea. A lot of the problem is rooted in bats, which have very tolerant immune systems. They are able to carry all sorts of novel viruses and bacteria in their blood without getting sick. Bats interact with other animals, sucking blood, and dropping germ laden feces around, contaminating other animals. Then we catch and sell the bats and other animals, and periodically get sick with ebola or corona virus and worse. — Bitter Crank

Clearly its not just a bad idea but a catastrophe in waiting. This kind of interaction of so many species, including ones as you describe should be just as high a priority as other things like climate change. The same goes for bushmeat practices in Africa. But a lot of the exotic animal trade also goes back to China. Clearly, interaction with animals in the wild in such an unsanitary way what is causing these diseases. That's not to say that they are not also caused by domestic animals, but they seem to be more stable being they have been around humans for 10,000s of years. But species such as bats and the like are not at all like that. Where's the outcry on this type of practice and its consequences?

Also, a great consequence is also the benefit to the animals themselves who wouldn't be confined, tortured, and killed off the planet for bizarre and ancient ideas about the "benefits" of eating these animals, or crushing up their body parts for whatever supposed remedy. This is not only something on behalf of animals, but humans too, if that matters to anyone.

@Bitter Crank@csalisbury@Marchesk

Has anyone discussed yet the ethics of these "open markets" in China? It seems pretty terrible for everyone involved- the animals, the humans that are local who go to these markets, and apparently all humans. For all the things this totalitarian regime cracks down on, they don't do it on this, which actually is harmful.