Adult Material (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform): — schopenhauer1
Well, that's because it usually is a juvenile inquiry :-OWhenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic — schopenhauer1
The focus on specialization has to do with the effects of industrialization and maximising the efficiency of individual workers. That's why everyone has to do a fixed thing repeatedly. So obviously all work ends up being very detailed, and not broad ranged.Instead, the fully functioning adult is too immersed in the details of the world. The more detail regarding a particular matter (whether at work or entertainment), means the the less likely "larger" existential questions arise. — schopenhauer1
Wow, feels like I'm back in university! :DWorking out the exact 'recipe', or proportions of each ingredient is a science in itself. It is called concrete mix design. A good mix designer will start with the properties that are desired in the mix, then take many factors into account, and work out a detailed mix design. A site engineer will often order a different type of mix for a different purpose. For example, if he is casting a thin concrete wall in a hard-to-reach area, he will ask for a mix that is more flowable than stiff. This will allow the liquid concrete to flow by gravity into every corner of the formwork. For most construction applications, however, a standard mix is used.
Common examples of standard mixes are M20, M30, M40 concrete, where the number refers to the strength of the concrete in n/mm2 or newtons per square millimeter. Therefore M30 concrete will have a compressive strength of 30 n/mm2. A standard mix may also specify the maximum aggregate size. Aggregates are the stone chips used in concrete. If an engineer specifies M30 / 20 concrete, he wants M30 concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 20mm. He does NOT want concrete with a strength of between 20-30 n/mm2, which is a common misinterpretation in some parts of the world.
So the structure is actually a connected frame of members, each of which are firmly connected to each other. In engineering parlance, these connections are called moment connections, which means that the two members are firmly connected to each other. There are other types of connections, including hinged connections, which are used in steel structures, but concrete frame structures have moment connections in 99.9% of cases. This frame becomes very strong, and must resist the various loads that act on a building during its life.
These loads include:
Dead Loads: the downwards force on the building coming from the weight of the building itself, including the structural elements, walls, facades, and the like.
Live Loads: the downwards force on the building coming from the expected weight of the occupants and their possessions, including furniture, books, and so on. Normally these loads are specified in building codes and structural engineers must design buildings to carry these or greater loads. These loads will vary with the use of the space, for example, whether it is residential, office, industrial to name a few. It is common for codes to require live loads for residential to be a minimum of about 200 kg/m2, offices to be 250 kg/m2, and industrial to be 1000 kg/m2, which is the same as 1T/m2. These live loads are sometimes called imposed loads.
Dynamic Loads: these occur commonly in bridges and similar infrastructure, and are the loads created by traffic, including braking and accelerating loads.
Wind Loads: This is a very important design factor, especially for tall buildings, or buildings with large surface area. Buildings are designed not to resist the everyday wind conditions, but extreme conditions that may occur once every 100 years or so. These are called design windspeeds, and are specified in building codes. A building can commonly be required to resist a wind force of 150 kg/m2, which can be a very significant force when multiplied by the surface area of the building.
etc. etc. — schopenhauer1
Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. — schopenhauer1
This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration — schopenhauer1
How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair? — schopenhauer1
It could be a useful meme that has effectively shifted people's questions away from existence itself so that they forget it as a topic of legitimacy and focus on details so that society can keep on moving forward without leading to feelings of angst. — schopenhauer1
Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic — schopenhauer1
Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration. — schopenhauer1
How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair? It could be a useful meme that has effectively shifted people's questions away from existence itself so that they forget it as a topic of legitimacy and focus on details so that society can keep on moving forward without leading to feelings of angst. — schopenhauer1
Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. — schopenhauer1
This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration. These are things that youth ask who are not initiated into society's "real" problems. Thus, anyone who retains this line of questioning must never have progressed beyond this stage of their life- or so the implication is supposed to be. Instead, the fully functioning adult is too immersed in the details of the world. The more detail regarding a particular matter (whether at work or entertainment), means the the less likely "larger" existential questions arise.
Well, that's because it usually is a juvenile inquiry :-O — Agustino
The focus on specialization has to do with the effects of industrialization and maximising the efficiency of individual workers. That's why everyone has to do a fixed thing repeatedly. So obviously all work ends up being very detailed, and not broad ranged. — Agustino
Juvenile in the sense of a tyrant who holds to the power to destroy folks in genocidal acts of war or commit political blunders with grave consequences? — Nils Loc
And if they claim to have good reasons for believing that it is, what then? — Thorongil
How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair?
— schopenhauer1
How are we to know that they're not? — Thorongil
Or it could not be. Making these apparently rhetorical statements doesn't relieve you of the burden of having to justify them. — Thorongil
I'm uncertain how the existence of future people can be continued. — Ciceronianus the White
Population control wouldn't be a juvenile topic, I beleive, but I don't think that entails acceptance of the view that reproduction, in itself, is in all cases immoral. — Ciceronianus the White
The question of whether we should reproduce is clearly related to whether life is good on the whole. — t0m
"We" filthy life-affirmers can frame the youthful excesses of existential angst as the pain of a second weaning -- of learning to live without the breast-milk of some authoritative justification of life. Hence "juvenile." Or we may frame such excess or life-negativity in terms of an erotic frigidity. Allured by life's voluptuous charms enough to ignore her yellow or even red teeth, it's hard not see a rejection of her in terms of a lack of lust. Is the anti-natalist fully switched-on? — t0m
The anti-natalist needs the world as a stage on which to perform his rejection of the world. Of course Schopenhauer lived to a ripe old age with his prostitutes and his books. He slept by a pair of pistols, ready to kill anyone trying to snatch his precious life or property away from him. — t0m
Where are these dullards who have never contemplated whether life is worth living? You may find some conservatives with a God narrative, but that's not even the rule anymore. "Society" keeps moving forward because most humans individually decide that the game is worth the candle. — t0m
The anti-natalist can call them shallow or irrational and they can understand anti-natalism as squeamishness, erotic frigidity, etc., or, in general, as a personal problem/decision vainly projected outward as a universal truth. But then anti-natalism is one voice among so many others condemning life as guilty, ugly, sinful. Both sides can talk about rational justifications, but it's more plausible that some gut-level decisions or just semi-fixed emotional tonalities are involved. — t0m
If you don't want children that is fine, and no one is going to attempt to force you to procreate. — Janus
There is no 'calculus' for the worth of life; each person is a unique 'barometer'; it really comes down to individual affect. — Janus
It is simply a jumping off point for an aesthetic picture, not simply an ethical credo. — schopenhauer1
But when the very act of doing anything is related to being in the first place rather than intra-wordly affairs of specific goals and questions is the larger issue going on. — schopenhauer1
So are you saying it is? What's your claim that it is or is not? — schopenhauer1
Sure, but like all "aesthetic pictures" it is subjective, and there are no resources within it with which to form an argument that could be compelling in an intersubjective context. — Janus
Can you explain a bit more; it's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. — Janus
Don't shift this onto me! This is precisely what I was asking you! — Thorongil
I don't think anyone has a problem in you making a personal decision to not have any kids. Where the problem arises and where people tend to question your motive is when you show that you believe that you should have the right to stop everyone from having kids because YOU think live isn't worth living, or is a sham. For others, life is worth living and worth bringing in others to share it. Whose to say that you are right and they are wrong and that you get to determine their choices in having kids or not? Doesn't it really come down to the kind of life each individual lives with some having more suffering than others, and where some individuals are incapable of coping with reality? There is no objective rule or law that says life really is or isn't worth living. It is up to the individual. So I don't see a point in continuing this conversation, or why you keep bringing it up. If you have made that decision, then good for you. It is obvious that others disagree.Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration. These are things that youth ask who are not initiated into society's "real" problems. Thus, anyone who retains this line of questioning must never have progressed beyond this stage of their life- or so the implication is supposed to be. Instead, the fully functioning adult is too immersed in the details of the world. The more detail regarding a particular matter (whether at work or entertainment), means the the less likely "larger" existential questions arise. — schopenhauer1
That is what I have found religion to be, not working at my job.How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair? It could be a useful meme that has effectively shifted people's questions away from existence itself so that they forget it as a topic of legitimacy and focus on details so that society can keep on moving forward without leading to feelings of angst. — schopenhauer1
As I said earlier: Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints. — schopenhauer1
For others, life is worth living and worth bringing in others to share it. Whose to say that you are right and they are wrong and that you get to determine their choices in having kids or not? Doesn't it really come down to the kind of life each individual lives with some having more suffering than others, and where some individuals are incapable of coping with reality? There is no objective rule or law that says life really is or isn't worth living. It is up to the individual. So I don't see a point in continuing this conversation, or why you keep bringing it up. If you have made that decision, then good for you. It is obvious that others disagree. — Harry Hindu
No, it's not so much the question that's juvenile. It's the attitude or thoght process associated with reaching a negative conclusion. Is it juvenile to angrily exclaim, "I didn't ask to be born!", when being scolded by a parent? I've seen that here disguised as something more sophisticated. — Sapientia
Well, this is not an "in the moment" exclamation because somebody didn't let me do something I wanted to. That would be juvenile in a sense, but the topic of why we continue to exist and allowing for serious consideration of why we bring future people into the world, is actually a very relevant and serious topic. — schopenhauer1
A specific person may not be identified, but the counterfactual of not procreating is no future person will exist where there could have been. Not sure why you think this is an abuse of language to think in future tenses and potential consequences from actions. Too literal perhaps? — schopenhauer1
He will just respond by saying that creating human life and continuing to live once alive are separate issues. He will say that suicide is difficult to perform because we're hardwired for living and even immoral because it causes suffering for friends and family. — Thorongil
Why is this one off limits but others not? Again, this is another way to shut down any thought on it before it enters the world of debate to begin with. — schopenhauer1
It would seem to me to that what is being claimed (once the nonexistent people are out of the picture) is that people shouldn't have children, ever. Of course, that statement will require justification — Ciceronianus the White
Would it be--because if people have children, there will be more people? Why, though, would that be a bad thing--something which shouldn't take place? Because it's a bad thing to be a person? I don't know. — Ciceronianus the White
This is (admittedly) about antinatalism (not procreating future people). — schopenhauer1
Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. — schopenhauer1
It's clearly not off limits. We're discussing it here and now, while Benatar and others have published books and articles on it in the academy. My concern is that you seem to think that anyone who has bothered to think about this topic must come to the same conclusion as you have.
As you know, I've cooled on anti-natalism, so if my responses are perceived to be of a similar temperature, it's mostly because I don't like the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication that I and others who come to a different conclusion haven't seriously thought about the topic. — Thorongil
All issues are wrapped up in existential ones of what the hell we are doing here in the first place. — schopenhauer1
Edit: I know I'm missing some details in terms of logics; still, how does this stand as an overall argument? — javra
P3: If all people who desire reduced suffering in the world (including antinatalists) were to no longer exist, then the world would become fully populated by people that increase suffering in the world—this either due to lack of care or due to willful intent. — javra
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.