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.

There is the Freudian theory for starters.

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.

I'm sorry im not trolling I just dont know how to do what you're asking. 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.

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.

Also preference is most definitely not a thing derived from imperical science and that is the stance you are debating for. So I'm confused as to why I'm being told to provide evidence of my stance when yours is the more lofty reasoning? The biological need for information to survive only happens through new life. People have sex to create new life. All I'm saying is if modern theory of evolution is to be believed then instinct is what sex likely
drove procreation in the first place, even for us humans.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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). — schopenhauer1

Perhaps you are using an anthropological definition of ideology?

Ideology (Anthropology) ... The first use of the term refers to the system of social and moral ideas of a group of people; in this sense ideology is contrasted with "practice.
Ideology (Anthropology) - In Depth Tutorials and Information
what-when-how.com › social-and-cultural-anthropology › ideology-anthr... — what when and how

Image result for define ideology in sociology
Ideology is the lens through which a person views the world. Within the field of sociology, ideology is broadly understood to refer to the sum total of a person's values, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. ... Ideology is directly related to the social structure, economic system of production, and political structure.Jul 3, 2019
Theories of Ideology in Sociology - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › Sociology › Key Concepts
I didn't realize there are so many different ways to understand the word "ideology". — thoughtco

That seems to cover a group of people more advanced than primitive tribes. I would not except primitive people to put so much thought into their lives and without the thought, there isn't an ideology.

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.

Anarchism.
Colonialism.
Communism.
Despotism.
Distributism.
Feudalism.
Socialism.
Totalitarianism.
More items...
List of political ideologies - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_political_ideologies — Wikipedia

I would say religions and ideologies are a step away from a primitive survival system with unquestionable truths. The story about the three sisters that tells people where to find water is just a story. For me, it does not become a religion or an ideology until people forget the reality-based meaning of the story and mistake the abstract story for the reality. Political and religious ideologies are not equal to the story of the three sisters that tells a person where to find water. Political and religious ideologies exist with no concrete reality. I think we walk down a troublesome path if we forget that.

The sociology definition or ideology is "the lens through which a person views the world". Knowing the three sisters is where to find water, is not a lens, it is reality. Thinking the abstract story is real, is seeing the world through a lens.

Not about one type of society versus another.. Only about having to navigate society (survival, maintenance, entertainment) in general. — schopenhauer1

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.

Also preference is most definitely not a thing derived from imperical science and that is the stance you are debating for. So I'm confused as to why I'm being told to provide evidence of my stance when yours is the more lofty reasoning? The biological need for information to survive only happens through new life. People have sex to create new life. All I'm saying is if modern theory of evolution is to be believed then instinct is what sex likely
drove procreation in the first place, even for us humans. — LuckilyDefinitive

Yes, "preference is most definitely not a thing derived from empirical science". If we rejoice about global warming and the pandemic sweep across the world or think it is terrible and must be stopped, it is a preference. Some see it as a sign of the last days and are thrilled they are proven right and Jesus is about to return. It depends on the lens we are looking through. Basing all decisions on money is another lense. :lol: some people may have bifocals and some people can't find their glasses.

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.

No, the goal here is to argue whether thinking it is okay to bring more people into the world IS itself an ideology. — schopenhauer1

I thought we had an agreement that some people think about having children and some people do not?

For sure my decision to have children was intentional. For sure I thought I would not have the full experience of being a woman without having children. I was a virgin until marriage because I didn't want to risk having a child without a man to support us. 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.

Unfortunately, I began my family with a man who didn't want to be a participating father. He just wanted to prove he was a man by having a son. From there he took no pleasure in being a father. He begrudgingly supported the family for several years, became alcoholic, went through rehab. and AA helped him put himself first. He abandoned the family to protect his sobriety. What was his idealogy?

I haven't seen anything akin to a cohesive mathematical approximation of any society, or the exact point where one begins and other ins, or the multitudes of 1000s of different families, individuals, businesses, social groups, legal institutions, medias, physical locales, and so on and so on which combine to create a society in a delicate and complex interplay; most childish, archaic, anti-intellectual, and offensively simplistic and/nonsensical approximations of societ(ies) to begin with leave much to be desired, but then again some if not many care very little about it or such contemporary and truthful notions to begin with, preferring instead to show little to no interest in it to begin with, beyond perhaps the paltry and selfish bare minimum, other than perhaps their own immediate families of social groups, both in theor(ies) as well as in practices.

Society is a fabrication fathered by Socrates / Plato. All variations thereof have stemmed from this. Does it make sense that each person in the society / city is single skilled when this is completely contrary to nature whereby the strongest survive by their ability to adapt and change to their environ. If we likened society to cattle herding, then the whole process has been a method to group the masses together in order to serve the few, who were more interested in quality than survival, but nature tells us that in such circumstances, take swarming locusts for instance, the population swell to such an extent that they consume everything and then die, usually through starvation or disease. Instead perhaps, we should look to a flock of birds in the sky. A flock of millions will move together in beautiful synchronicity, without a leader, with no need of a privileged few and yet the result is one of harmony and balance.

They do not settle in one place and consume everything, instead they move around and allow that which has been consumed to re grow. In crop growing this is known as crop rotation, a resting of the soil at the appropriate time.

We could also liken this to cancer in the body. Cancer is simply cells that wont stop growing (cell transgression). The body is dealing with this all the time and has very good methods for eliminating these cells. The problem arises when the cells stop moving and therefore cannot be removed by normal elimination from the body. At which point the cells set in and a tumour develops. If the settlement site happens to be in an organ that normal distributes around the body (generally in the glands) then the cells are sent everywhere that gland has access to.

I would dare to suggest that our rise in physical cancer in the body is in perfect relation to the cancer our now "global city" dwelling, where countries are liken to districts. A reverse of the pattern would be needed to fix it. Our cities should be dismantled and everyone should become multi skilled in living and not single skilled in dependance. How we get there is an unanswered question.

In Platos Republic, he identified the problem of growth of the city. The city would start to encroach on the surrounding land because the numbers required to fulfil all the wants of luxury when everyone is single skilled, is massive and endlessly growing. For this, he chose the model of an obedient dog to model the soldiers required to "aquire" the land from those already occupying it. Qualities identified as recognising a friend and being nice, and recognising a foe and being murderous were deemed good. He went as far as to say that a dog was a philosopher and had wisdom. He also highlighted the necessity of limiting the competing narrative of theocracy, in the form of poetry, for these would clearly guide a solider to the contrary. He also recognised the need to balance such a person with a triumphant soul, for, as he said, who can defeat the soul, its unbeatable. He deduced that by music such a need could be fulfiled.

I dont know what the right answer is, perhaps at his time of writing it made perfect sense, but I see that it is not the answer for us today.

Society is a fabrication fathered by Socrates and Plato. All variations thereof have stemmed from this.
[/quote]
I'm inclined to not believe that. in same ways, the notions of society are innate, or have their roots In genetics.

For example, ants are known create vast "cities" complete with phenomena such as roadways or irrigation systems:

https://www.vnews.com/Allegheny-mound-ants-discovered-in-Temple-29066253

(Obviously not all societies are "the same", or equal, nor is the society of ant colony anything akin to a model of an integrated human society, good, bad or otherwise, or a way or means of distinguishing between archaic, uncivilized, savage society or remnants or elements thereof (e.x. horrible and archaic, anti-intellectual parenting practices) and higher-quality and/or higher level forms of which better societies and their elements thereof take or perpetuate to begin with, such as. a totalitarian state whether ancient or modern, or other morally or intellectually degenerate or worst elements of societ(ies) which function in similar outdated, antisocial, and/or archaic ways, albeit informally and unofficially).

(Much given that any society or attempted mathematical, economic, or financial approximation(s) thereof to begin with, or any deeper or complex knowledge of its laws, institutions, and so and so forth both in, for instance, legal theory and/or as wells as in similar legal or human nature practices. negative, begin or otherwise, is merely as mall window or looking glass into a complex whole or interplay of different individuals, families, businesses, schools, colleges, universities, cultures and so-called "sub-cultures" social groups, medias, villages, towns, cities, nations, international organizations, legal systems, languages, jargons, dialects, and institutions, offline and online social groups or networks, and so on and so forth to begin with, there naturally being no exact science or 'perfect' way to approximate or quantify one to begin with, nor is it reducible necessarily to any one of the above components either).

For that matter, the idea that society or humanity whether in East or West "began" solely with the ancient Greeks is rather fallacious as well, though it does mark a historical milestone.

As an example, there are still pre-literate tribes of hunter gatherers, such as the Sentinelese, who live or exist in some co-operative capacity, as presumably have or did many other ancient cultures or tribes, regardless of whether or not there is anything akin to a "formal" or written law.

Your argument, to me sounds like popular anarchist mythos.

I would argue just because the content is different from one society to another, tells us very little about the structure of the society. Plato created a structure for society, how each one was then understood and adapted slightly made very little difference to the over arching structure. Of course we can liken our cities to ant hills and termite mounds but there is one fundamental difference, each is in balance with nature and not against it, unlike our cities. I would lean to what in nature controls the growth of a termite or ant colony? How is its size limited as resources diminish. Perhaps we should follow the same path. Is there any balance in a system being in favour of less than 1% of the population, at the cost of the 99%.

Again i would argue, and certainly not for the advocation of anarchy which paramounts to chaos. Yes that is an option but one resulting in absolute destruction so not one I would vote for. My point here is, that a society that is effective for all concerned would need to be one based on order, but not of the few, but order by agreement of all. To hide behind the complexities of an existing system as a reason to say it cannot be known is to mix up content with structure. As you rightly highlighted, an ant hill is highly complex in its appearance but is structurally created by very basic rules, and hierarchies or order.

If you can show a model before Ancient Greek that represents closely to what we now see in our own cities, that fundamentally issues justice by those who are unjust, then I would welcome the opportunity to see it. Prior to Greek, we had the latter dynasties of Egypt but by that point they had also already become corrupta had lost there head. However, the earlier version of Ancient Egypt which were run as a well organised Theocracy showed what humans could achieve with co operation was greater than anything else. Of course we were told, probably by the Greeks, that Egypt was founded on slaves, although archeology has shown the people were actually well respected and looked after and actually loved their Pharoahs. Needless to day the pyramids and the like were built in a time when most others were generally still smash flint together to make fire and living in caves.

If my arguement sounds like anarchy then my message was not understood, that may be my fault for not explaining it well enough, if so I apologise. The point is, what we have now can only end is disaster because a fundamental flaw was built into the foundation from the start, being the objective to favour the few at the cost of the many, or simply exploitation. A beautiful house built on sand will still sink no matter how nice it might be for those living in it.

Upon contemplating my original comment further, I would rather say that dismantling the city may not be necessary if indeed it can be re-engineered. Whether there is enough time to do such a thing, I very much doubt, but it certainly would be possible.

I would also add, if society was innate or genetic then all human beings on the planet would subscribe to them but they dont. Societies have arisen as an antithesis to hunter gather groups, allow said societies to grow to a size that intimidates smaller groups into submission, usually for the control of resources. Just take a look at how the bigger societies treat the smaller ones. Watch how the military powers of bigger nations will swoop on smaller ones, but where the contest is evenly matched, very quickly turns to economic attack in the form of sanctioning. And if thats not effective enough, then phone the leaders of the other bigger societies and get them to introduce sanctions too. This is not negative, this is not anti democratic or whatever other name one may choose to call it, it is simply analytical fact. If its wrong, please demonstrate to the contrary.

If you fancy seeing how this has played out over the last 40 years, I recommend you watch Hypernormalisation.

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.

“ 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?

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?

If you know he intends to kill with it, yes.

If you know he intends to kill with it, yes. — NOS4A2

Cool. My point. A person (gun) doesn't have to exist. It isn't completely analogous, the only point was to prove that the actual person in question doesn't have to exist, just the potential.

Cool. My point. A person (gun) doesn't have to exist. It isn't completely analogous, the only point was to prove that the actual person in question doesn't have to exist, just the potential.

Sure, but no ethical behavior or principle can be held towards potential people by the simple fact that they do not exist, just like a man cannot kill with a potential gun.

Sure, but no ethical behavior or principle can be held towards potential people by the simple fact that they do not exist, just like a man cannot kill with a potential gun. — NOS4A2

But the man would kill, if the gun was made and he has a very realistic chance of doing that because he has all the parts and know how. So, the potential victim doesn't matter because the gun isn't made yet?

But the man would kill, if the gun was made and he has a very realistic chance of doing that because he has all the parts and know how. So, the potential victim doesn't matter because the gun isn't made yet?

I’m having difficulty with the analogy here.

My position is that there are many reasons why one wouldn’t want to have children, but I do not think it needs to be spun into a moral principle towards “potential beings”, which are not beings at all. I think ethics should pertain towards beings.

My position is that there are many reasons why one wouldn’t want to have children, but I do not think it needs to be spun into a moral principle towards “potential beings”, which are not beings at all. I think ethics should pertain towards beings. — NOS4A2

With this repetition of your initial objection, you do seem to have difficulty with the analogy. The analogy applies here because the gun being created will directly affect another person, even though in that particular moment, the gun is not created yet (to affect another person).

At the same token, if someone has a potential to exist (all the parts to do this and know how is there), then certainly, when those parts come together, a person will be affected.

With this repetition of your initial objection, you do seem to have difficulty with the analogy. The analogy applies here because the gun being created will directly affect another person, even though in that particular moment, the gun is not created yet (to affect another person).

At the same token, if someone has a potential to exist (all the parts to do this and know how is there), then certainly, when those parts come together, a person will be affected.

I have difficulty with it for a few reasons. One, it’s not analogous. Two, creating a child is in no way similar to assembling a gun. Three, creating life is the opposite of taking a life.

But as for your argument, I do agree that if and when those parts come together a person will be affected. At that point we are able to apply ethics and morals to them.