I don’t believe that for a second because I know what is taught in economics and I know exactly how important the relation between economics and ecology is.

Your point was the population is an issue. It is. My point is that population growth reduces as GDP increases.

That is all.

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy. — Janus

How is that viable? Is it a realistic option? What happens to the poorest people in this process? What events in human history have raised living standards beyond mere survival?

One thread was asking if it was worthwhile engaging with deluded individuals like yourself— and the answer was in the affirmative, mostly for the benefit of others. — Xtrix

And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways)

Yes but you see how this argument is often used to justify massively disproportionate growth. — Xtrix

I see the kind of thing Janus is saying far more often. That is more disconcerting.

A good example is the 2017 tax cut. Yes, it’s true that middle class people got a modest (and temporary) cut to their taxes…but I think you know the rest. — Xtrix

No I don’t. The reason being I’m not from your country and don’t much care about what one single nation’s government does regarding taxes. I do know that the wealthiest nations (throughout history) always have the largest disparity when it comes to comparisons between the richest and the poorest.

None of this has anything to do with the point I made. The better the economy the lower the birthrate, the better the economy the more opportunities for individuals and the better the economy the more room for environmental concerns (because first and foremost people need to see the horizon before they care about what is over it).

You do at least understand that economics isn't merely about making money right?

Economists who ignore resources are not economists. Can you explain?

Humans are extraordinarily absurd beings. We have a kind of self-destructive streak. I actually think it is precisely this that allows us to step beyond out own perceived limitations and achieve what would previously been seen as ‘impossible’.

I don’t think you understand how economics works then - seems to be an epidemic of people who are clueless about this and they are actually the root of the problem.

Kind of ironic really.

If you truly cannot fathom/believe how the rich can get richer whilst the poorest of the poor also get richer then look at the history of economic growth on a global scale over the course of human history. As for teh population growth this decreases when poverty decreases so it is in everyone’s interest to expand economic growth not inhibit it.

Like I said, these kind of things can be quite counter intuitive as what we believe in our gut to be the ‘wrong’ focus quite often turns out to be the right one. Greed, guilt and avarice are generally perceived as ‘sins’ so keep an eye out for them. They will cause your destruction and everyone else’s if left unchecked … they often appear in the hearts of the do goobers and have far more power there.

Are you telling me everything you’ve ever done made perfect sense to you and you never thought it was the wrong or sub optimal choice? I say liar because humans do NOT always, or perhaps even mainly, act in a rational nor logical manner.

Some simple examples: Buying a lottery ticket, drug addict, hunger, poverty or love/sex.

Whenever we decide to do something we believe that what we are about to do actually does make sense. — Average

Speak for yourself! :D

@frank Turns out I’m wrong. I guess I’ve just heard him haro on about it so much I assumed it was his baby :D

I think you’ll find it’s the other way around. Daniel Dennett right? Or am I going slowly mad?

Basically he is asking is there anything to do with the perception of colour other than our sensory input. Clearly the answer is yes because we can see colours whereas once we couldn't.

How much this is due to experience or not is up for debate. I don't think the thought experiment does much for ideas of 'Qualia' OR pure forms of 'Physicalism'. It is an interesting thing to ponder though and makes us think about what we mean by colour and perception, as well as how perception and sensory input relate and amalgamate into a consciousness.

We would have a hard time saying the same thing about circular objects. Could Mary live in a room that only contained straight lines and sharp angles learn all there is to know about circles and not find anything astounding about the sight of a curved line outside of her straight lined and angled room? She could certainly make some attempts at imagining such (much like we can understand how a fourth dimensional space object may appear to us) but the 'learning' something new is irrelevant to the actual experience of. WE can read about riding a bike, watch people ride bikes and maybe even dream of riding bikes ... but that isn't riding a bike.

That is why I have an issue with how people approach this one sometimes.

But how would you describe the concept of color? Of red? — frank

I don't understand how that has anything to do with it? I can describe colours to congenially blind people by way of referring to others senses.

As with 'table' (for someone who has no concept of what a table is) I'd maybe go for it's use rather than it's physical appearance.

Mary would understand that there are different shades of things. She would know this. There are people who cannot see colour but can distinguish between colours by the shade and the item they are looking at (reds and greens) by experience. There is a professional photographer who takes colour photos even though she cannot see colour.

An actual real life report from stroke victims can open up a bit of a window into this problem. People who've had strokes don't understand (lose the ability to see colour) the concept of 'colour' yet when they 'recall' what colour is they see colour again.

I think this is much more about how we order and prioritise concepts. For example a table is not a table to people who have no use or need for tables. It is just an object of curiosity perhaps but they don't 'see' a table.

She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... — frank

Too far fetched to make sense imo. I've never been fond of Dennett's Mary tbh. If all the 'physical information' is all the 'information' then what this has to do with actual subjective experience doesn't seem to be on the same plane.

Economic growth in poorer countries is basically how most problems are solved. This will often lead to greater 'super rich' people in countries already wealthy.

Often the actual practical ways to manage certain problems is fairly counter intuitive.

Nihilists and buddhists have a lot in common.

Tests would lead to workers having to go home too frequently and so production would drop — Isaac

The test takes 15-30 mins. I stated that if employees were willing to show up early and take the test before work then it would be a way around the issue for those who feel that taking the vaccine isn't in their best interest.

This, in place for people with medical reasons for not taking the vaccine would make perfect sense too rather than just expecting them not to work at all.

I'm still perplexed about the distinction between someone not wishing to take the vaccine and someone with religious reasons for not taking the vaccine. If we're applying reason and rationality in this case how do we allow one rule for religious persons and another for non-religious persons. This is being applied in the US military tbh (as in by 'law' dismissing someone for their chosen career). Just to buff this up I wouldn't say joining the army is sensible in terms of your personal rights but they exist in terms of religious distinction.

I have some background in Early Buddhism, so it's easy to for me to think about suffering, but I can now better appreciate people who don't have such a background and how they approach the problem of suffering. — baker

What do you mean 'some background'. You were brought up as a buddhist? How does that make it easier to think about suffering?

It's true that trust in authority, especially institutional authority, is at an all time low. That's across the board, and well documented: media, government, business, academia. We're skeptical of politicians, religious leaders, corporate leaders, advertisements, salesmen, teachers, scientists, doctors, pollsters -- and even our neighbors. — Xtrix

That doesn't sound like anything other than the status quo. I would say there is far more hype due to mass media and more access to poor/pseudo reports though.

People's lives are so crappy, despite having followed all the rules and done all the "right" things, that they're rightfully distrustful and looking for something or someone to blame. — Xtrix

Again, compared to when? I think people generally look to blame others as it helps to ignore personal faults that we wish not to face.

A good example of this is polling. If a poll reflects what we want to believe, we "trust" it -- it's accurate. — Xtrix

No, I don't think so. I think a comedian put this across well regarding surveys and such. Normal people usually don't waste time answering surveys. They are poor reflections of society as a whole.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

Some people don't care (or simply cannot afford to care) about political nuances. Others are apathetic, and others overly enthused.

I'm not convinced that people 'act out' their beliefs either. I think it was Schopenhauer (maybe Rousseau?) that made a comical statement about people saying one thing and doing another.

I think this is one to keep at the forefront of our minds:

“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”—Bertrand Russell.

When it comes to 'following'/agreeing with someone or something I just ask myself if I can find fault in something they say. If I cannot find any fault I assume I am wrong because I've missed something. I seek out points that oppose me rather than ignore them (or so I like to believe!). This is basically along the lines of what Russell states. If I cannot find a flaw then I must be missing something. Any idea that I cannot oppose I am EXTREMELY wary of.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? — Xtrix

I would prefer to ask 'Do we have an epistemic responsibility in life?' simply because it is clearer. That is how I attempt 'responsibility' - through attempts at clarity where it seems to prevent misinterpretation.

I think this is an intriguing question. I have said I few times in my life that I care about what people think but I don't much care what they think about me.

When a physicist discovers something that throws out mainstream thinking people are excited. I try to foster this attitude towards life in general as what most refer to as 'seeking happiness' is just this I feel. the elation I gain from struggling over a certain problem is a very strange kind of elation. It is as if it has 'pain' in it yet when there is a crack of a breakthrough all that 'pain' turns out not to be 'painful' at all and I was just fooling myself into thinking I was 'frustrated,' 'angry' or 'upset'.

I prefer to express this thought more with another quote:

“The sacred tree, the sacred stone are not adored as stone or tree they are worshipped precisely because they are hierophanies, because they show something that is no longer stone or tree but sacred, the ganz andere or 'wholly other.”

- Mircea Eliade

This 'wholly other' is very much a part of human experience - or rather our conflict with, or avoidance of, it. 'Trust' - in respect it your item of driving - is not at the forefront of our minds in the moment. We don't expect drivers to make up their own rules. Our world is made up of 'driving rules' and if one was to travel to another country where things are a little different we will feel that 'they are wrong' and 'we are right' simply because our world view (in terms of driving) opposes theirs. They are 'stupid' and we are 'right'. This a perfectly natural reaction to an alien system because what is effectively being brought into question is our core founding of how the world around operates and is formed (I prefer the term/s Weltanschauung or Axis Mundi here). Some things we simply don't question like a balls rolling down hills instead of up hills or not sinking into the pavement. There are different levels of extremity as I see it that we parcel up as 'wrong' instead of taking the opportunity to broaden our horizons and learn more about the world we're about.

Judgement is great. Being judgmental is usually self deceit. We're all prone to erring but that isn't an excuse for mistakes it is something should be willing to bring to the table when in a discussion with people we don't agree with or understand.

justice insists that what one person deserves for a given action be the same as for another. — Banno

Slavery for all! It is ‘just’. If you litter the streets then slavery! It is just and deserv … wait a minute!? You call it ‘punishment’ and I call it ‘cost’. It’s basic economics from my perspective. Nothing comes for free - especially freedom.

It appears I misunderstood the point of the OP so this is a side issue.

When it comes to equality I’m in the camp of equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. The boxes picture is a nice twee analogy but in other situations it can be less than easy to agree (especially when defining ‘justice’ based on identity groups).

immaturity

Everyone knows what it is to suffer and that doesn't need 'defining'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y

I find it ironic that this is the hill mostly conservative people want to die on when it comes to corporate power. — Xtrix

Er … what?

Btw I grew up in a country where paying for medical care was not something anyone really considered doing so maybe asking someone to pay for such themselves doesn’t quite sit as well with me as it does with you. Either way, a test would resolve the issue and as the vaccine isn’t infallible why not just test everyone every day if the concern is so great.

We’re not going to agree here so no point in continuing. You’ve shown your hand now and we’re clearly not playing the same game.

Okay, I’ll just stand aside then and listen. Thanks for clarifying where I had got the wrong end of the stick :)

As opposed to imprisoning someone even? Nah. Sorry. The payment for one’s actions comes in one form or another. The ‘justness’ of such is dependent upon the severity of the crime/fault committed.

Also, someone could willingly become a slave. I’m sure you’ve read Aristotle on this. The situation could very well be beneficial to both but in the way we frame the picture of ‘being a slave’ today is probably skewed more toward unjust slavery not slavery as a whole.

In the sense that when we ask is slavery good or bad in the general way most people refer to it I’d say it is clearly bad. Unjust? That depends if and only if it has bee dealt out unjustly otherwise we could then find ourselves calling any punishment for any crime ‘unjust’ (which it may well be but I doubt that would gain much traction with many folk).

If you look at Crowley through the lens of Jung and Nietzsche he probably won't look quite as decadent. I kind of view Alan Moore as what Crowley could've been.

Anyway, we're straying WAY off topic here .. my bad :D

Considering myself a pagan — Michael Zwingli

I don't think that means anything in the way you've framed it. The 'pagan' religion isn't a separate entity but rather an amalgam of ideas based on some belief in a common origin (Indo European heritage of ideas/concepts), but in the more New Age modernised Western form it is more or less an attempt at doing something like outlining a common system in human behavior.

The actual event of 'Magick,' as Crowley termed it, is something very much more about memory systems, understanding and 'manipulating' (so to speak) oneself and some psychological tricks along the way that help all these things work together.

Witchcraft and/or Wicca and such are sometimes labelled as 'pagan' but I'm not entirely sure that makes any sense as 'paganism' is a term for a vast array of religious idea outside of Christianity and absorbed by Christianity.

The underlying principle of Occultism in general appears to be the understanding that one's cosmological view (or mythos) can be shaped like a piece of clay. Generally people don't do this kind of thing because it is classed as 'insanity' and such, and others merely 'play' at practicing such techniques and are simply idiotic or foolhardy.

I think the closest 'accepted' approximation of such a practice would be with Carl Jung and something he termed 'Active Imagination'. Other instances in history would come from the likes of Giordano Bruno (very strong tie to mnemonic systems there), and there are more recent investigations into such memory techiniques and ways to read knowledge via myths and rituals (children's rhymes, songs and dances).

The whole area is quite fascinating and too often brushed under the 'whacko' carpet sadly. Francis Yates did some brilliant scholarly work in this area.

Does that mean we can answer it? — Srap Tasmaner

It means that the spanner fitfully wakes under the duress of upper, downy hairs' delight ... a perfectly reasonable sentence grammatically but semantically useless.

What is the shape of a circle?

Where do we put the Moon when it rains?

Do balls roll down hills?

How do people carry eggs between their legs when they don't lay eggs?

Do I have two eyes in my head?

All grammatically correct but utterly useless if taken seriously.

Do we have the right to procreate? (see directly above)

and you liken him to...categorize him alongside F. Nietzsche? — Michael Zwingli

I never said that. The discussion is about 'will' and Crowley (regardless of what you think of him) did have some things to say about 'will' in a more 'religious' sense.

The fact regarding Crowley is, that I would not have expected to find such a man's, make that such a showman's, "philosophy" (used loosely) to be taken seriously by anybody on this site. — Michael Zwingli

If you can get past that you'll find an interesting story.

A better quote would be (to paraphrase) 'the biggest mistake is to set obtainable goals'.

It was a pun ;)

I prefer Peter Green

That wouldn't help nor is it needed here.

The general AN position is against 'suffering' which we all understand (no need to redefine the word). They must simply view 'suffering' (and I've seen this) as an item to be eliminated and have no regard for any balance. They are happy to refer to 'pleasure' as the opposite of 'suffering' but only when it suits their argumentation. When pushed the goal posts are moved to 'responsibility' (conveniently ignoring that to understand pleasure we must necessarily understand pain/suffering).

If they do except this (some just won't) then they view the negative as outweighing the positive. Depression and suicide are not reasonable arguments either as a great number of people live through these periods and are more than content that they didn't kill themselves.

I haven't seen a convincing argument that holds up the 'responsibility' point. It repeatedly boils down to 'what right do you have?' ... it is a non-question much like asking what right do I have to do anything.

From a recent discussion with someone on this forum I don't see a full understanding presented of what it means to say 'I'm an anti-natalist' OR I could just be assuming that to be an anti-natalist they must argue with certain underlying principles (otherwise it is contrary).

It reminds of the kind of attitude that surrounds people who deny free will and therefore think that anything they do or say is absent of any personal responsibility. Having children is not a denial of responsibility it is bringing responsibility to one's chest and understanding what we are.

Either way it's nice to see people thinking about stuff like this even if some of makes almost no sense to me and what I say makes almost no sense to them :)

I was thinking of it in terms of being 'satiated'. A glass of water offers more pleasure the more thirsty one is or a meal the pleasure the hungrier one is.

Along these lines a life devoid of suffering is not a life at all as far as I can see. There is a price for everything (even living in the lap of luxury). Some don't know how good they've got it and it is them who suffer because of this (albeit blindly) because they don't know what it is to suffer - something prevalent in nihilism I'd say.

To add, when it comes to morals and such we are likely better served to look as 'betterment' than 'truth' as dictating the best course of action or rules to guide us.

Saying something is a moral truth just makes itself out to be a subtler way of claiming a moral absolute that even refuses to be held up to enquiry.

The author was unfortunately so concerned with an ethical claim having the same value as a true/false statement (ensuring certainty) or having correspondence to reality (completeness, without any need for me), that he just tried to make moral truths fit those pictures, meet those standards, rather than see how they work in themselves--despite their ability to be justified, not seeing they go beyond knowledge. The problem he worried on was the fear of relativism. That, even with a best-case claim like "slavery is unjust" (much less something controversial, like "Black Lives Matter") is subject to the criticism that it is either unjustifiable as a true statement (just an opinion or "belief"), or is simply an individual thought, or worse, a feeling--so you, or another culture, may think, judge, feel entirely differently, however you like. — Antony Nickles

Sounds suspiciously like fear of context rather than relativism.

'Slavery is unjust' is not a True statement as far as I can tell. By this I mean in the Master Slave dynamic there can be good and bad Masters and Slaves, much in the manner that Aristotle outlined. That said, in ancient Greece/Athens 'slavery' was not the same as elsewhere and the dynamics and laws surrounding the history of slavery have never been identical (ie. killing a slave was illegal in some societies and not in others).

The question I would have is if the author is tending towards some form of moral absolutism or not? If they are I cannot see how they would convince me.

Good heavens, this is not Aleister Crowley, the English occultist, is it? — Michael Zwingli

Yes it is.

I get what you are saying though. Suffering is inevitable, but if gratuitous amounts of it can be prevented it should be. — ToothyMaw

I’m not saying that. I’m saying ‘suffering’ is actually what gives life value. No suffering is a zombie life without emotion. Some people want lives of candy and lollipops because they naively think that is ‘better’ for them. Nope.

However, 2000 years since Plato and Aristotle, civilization seems not to have progressed away from war — FreeEmotion

The facts beg to differ.

All the more reason to believe that it isn't wrong to not take a great risk in bringing someone into the world. Or, if we do, to be careful about it. — ToothyMaw

I don't see any 'wrong' or 'right' about it. The very question of it being right or wrong to have children is meaningless to me. I've tried to understand the AN point of view but there seems to be a disjoint in their thinking as some claim that they 'value life' yet, for all intents and purposes, wish human life to cease (quite literally).

Neither do they seem to understand that life without suffering is NOT life. Suffering isn't something inherently 'negative' it is just how we tend to view it overall.

Life is absurd. I'm okay with that and if it wasn't absurd I think I would likely have ended my life some time ago. The 'absurdity' makes it interesting.

But as far as certain lives being genuinely horrible and painful, the idea of unfairness makes some sense - you aren't existing on the terms you would like to, which is true for a great many people, even if they are happy to be alive. — ToothyMaw

It's true for me too. I've lived through some horrors. I don't regard that as any kind of justification for someone erasing my life once I hit that point of suffering ... if some understood what it was I felt they might likely think it 'better that I die, than suffer what I was suffering'. No thank you!

This had nothing to do with having children though. A non-existent person is non-existent not a 'potential person'. Such word play may convince others and I understand that there are gray areas. I don't see the world as black and white though ... more of a gray mushy, marbled mess of interwoven shades .