It is written in your linked article:

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 2,004,641 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics"

In the light of 250 new articles per day, an astoundingly accurate number. It wouldn't surprise me if the growth shows exponential growth, like almost all growth dictated by the growth imperative advocated by Science, at the same time making the metaphysical assumption that the reality which knowledge is about can never be reached. The epistemology, implied by the methodology of Karl Popper. A methodology most scientists would opt for, would they have been asked. In this methodology, a metaphysical reality of the unreachable is a necessary and sufficient to consolidate the imperative of knowledge growth and hypothesizes even that the search and growth will never end, turning scientists into nervous and restless creatures, never satisfied with the status quo.

This assumes that not creating the damage is either ethically good/neutral. If it's good to prevent damage whose prevention would not satisfy the interests of an actual person, then it is also bad to prevent happiness, regardles of whether or not someone exists to be deprived of it. If it is solely neutral, then I don't see how it can be justifiable to say that bestowing the good of happiness on another person's behalf is not ethical, especially considering the fact that there is no happiness and no satisfaction arising from "no collateral damage". — DA671

Right but after acknowledging how I am phrasing it, you go back to the straw man argument. That is to say, this is about the parent making a decision with moral implications, not the non-existent nothing. So let's see where we are:

1) There is a state of affairs where no one is suffering, and no one is deprived of happiness.
2) The parent must make a decision whereby the original state of affairs of ~suffering (no suffering) should be changed to one where suffering is present.

So what would impel one to change an initial state from ~ suffering to suffering?

I believe this a priori to be wrong, right there. What gives someone a right to change the initials state to one where suffering is present? It can be argued that, in an ideal world, this change of state from nothing to suffering is always bad and avoided as it is never just to create unnecessary suffering in the world, period. It does not matter the reason as the suffering was unnecessary to start in the first place.

These correlate to these two reasons:
1) Starting the conditions for all suffering unnecessarily
2) On behalf of someone else

Now let's look at the situation a posteriori:
3) The suffering is not trivial
4) The suffering is inescapable.

If we are to look at the nature of this suffering, we can see that the suffering that happens in life is persistent, could be stochastic, and varies from minor to great pains. Some of it can even be described as systematic in a Schopenhaurian sense of perpetual lack of satisfaction. One doesn't need this more Eastern interpretation though, so scratch it if you like.

If we look at life as not a paradise, it is certainly not escapable either. One isn't an angelic being (from the POV of a human) testing the waters of this existence to quickly retreat when one wanted to. Rather, it is lived out until death. Life entails all sorts of unasked for but necessary conditions one must deal with to live. We are also an animal that can dislike what we are doing AS we are doing it, EVEN though we know it is necessary for survival. Other animals just "do", but we can evaluate what we do (especially tasks of survival) and deem it negative. We have self-reflection on top of a primary consciousness in the present. This gives us our survival skills of cultural and linguistic survival, yet puts us in a place of self-knowledge whereby we know there are aspects we don't like but cannot escape, lest suicide slow (starvation) or fast (immediate). Both of these are not ideal. We must either "comply" with the situation once we are born or die by suicide. This is just to foist on someone? It is a double bind.

Thus for those four powerful reasons on top of the mere fact of the a priori truth that ~suffering is being changed to suffering, it would be wrong, unjust, misguided.

Now, for your objection regarding happiness..

1. Starting the conditions for all happiness is necessarily (presuming that NOT starting the conditions for harms is necessary) good.

2. On behalf of someone else who cannot ask for the good.

3. The happiness is also not trivial.

4. The happiness is precious and ineffably valuable, and most people do seem to value their lives.

Happiness does matter, and I don't think that your replies change that cardinal consideration. I am not claiming that life is intrinsically valuable (just as I don't believe that life is inherently disvaluable). I only think that if it can be good to not create harms, it can also be good to create valuable experiences. Nevertheless, I don't believe that anyone should be pressurised or forced to endure a valueless existence. — DA671

Is changing a state from ~happiness to happiness neutral or morally right, if there is collateral damage of changing a state from ~suffering to suffering?

Again, if we look at the fact that the suffering is non-trivial and inescapable, we can see that this would not meet any threshold whereby starting someone else's suffering (that has no merit outside simply happiness is a result as well).

Argument from intuition:
It seems morally intuitive that causing harm when it is not necessary is always a wrong. The key word is unnecessary. Once born, the intra-wordly (pace Cabrera) affairs of comparative loss/benefits might ensue, but in the case of procreation there is no need to ameliorate harms, and therefore all creation of harm is unnecessary.

Argument from Kant's Categorical Imperative:
In Kant's second formulation, it is noted that we should treat people as their own ends and not a means. In the case of starting happiness, the fact that one is disregarding someone else's suffering, would be a major violation of this principle. It would be overlooking the dignity of someone by foregoing the fact that you are starting suffering for someone because YOU think it is "worth it" to them to suffer. Notice that this reasoning does not need the post-facto thumbs up or down of the person who is affected. Rather, the decision itself is already a violation simply by overlooking dignity as represented by the suffering that the parent is disregarding in the decision to have a child for X reason (the X simply being a means or means to a preference held by the parent).

Argument from strings-attached gifts:
A gift is truly a gift in good faith if it was a) given with the intent that the person would have wanted and enjoyed the gift and b) comes with no strings attached. Rather, life is not simply happiness on a platter, but comes with the strings attached of suffering and harm. Further, this harm is non-trivial, and inescapable. This can no longer be deemed a gift. It is an agenda to start a set of experiences and circumstances on someone else's behalf. (See Argument from Kant's CI). This is indeed using someone then as one is burdening someone so that they can also receive the rewards of the precious "gift". Further, some people prefer others to suffer (to some extent) so they can "feel the rewards" of struggle. This I would say is just outright using people for an agenda.

Overall, any time someone is unnecessarily starting someone else's suffering it is a violation of dignity of that person and is using them.

It might be unavoidable that mankind brings on the chaos that destroys life on the planet, or that one human consciousness consumes all human consciousness, making what has happened to the aboriginal people of the world just part of the inevitable change of life. — Athena

Just part of the inevitable change of life? You mean the inevitable "progress" as part of a lifestyle that has done more harm to humanity than any other form has done and that even claims about itself that it is a lifeform lifted above other forms, as you write yourself. Now every form of life thinks it's the best, but imposing it by force is something completely different. Claiming that beating people in submission in favor of The Way, and that it's only natural this had to happen, that it had to be that way, is not any different from turning people into submission in the name of God. Again, this is no attack against science (I'm one myself!), only a defense of people who want to base living on a different story.

I made a consistent case for treating happiness equally, so I don't think there was any straw man involved. I said that I thought your claim was understandable, but I didn't think it was right. Some things can be implicit in our assumptions, even if we don't realise/accept it. The only reason I emphasised nothing was because you mentioned that "no happiness was being deprived", which seemed to refer to the idea that nobody is deprived of happiness in nothingnes. But moving on the the main argument.

Once again, I feel that your statements are limited because they frame things in a biased way. In other words, it essentially says that "nobody is suffering" and "nobody has any need for happiness". However, one could also say:

1. There is a state where nobody is happy, and nobody is saved from suffering.

2. The parent is the only one capable of making the decision whereby a state of affairs of no value (happiness) would turn into one that does possess the positives.

Nothing should compel us to create harms in isolation. However, I do think that the existence of deeply valuable experiences for many gives us a reason to create them. The formation of happiness can certainly be ethical.

I would not say that not creating a person leads to no harm. It could, for instance, severely affect the people who wanted to have a family. However, I won't consider that point here. I don't think there is a valid justification for not creating happiness in a state of affairs that lacked any prior value. Happiness is intrinsically valuable and it is never unnecessary to not create it, unless it leads to greater loss of value, which I don't think it does.

1. If not starting suffering (an intrinsically undesirable experience) is necessary, then starting happiness (an intrinsically preferable experience) can also be good.

2. It's definitely good to do so on behalf of someone who cannot ask for the good themselves.

Furthermore,

4. The happiness can also be deeply valuable and is experienced by many people; it is not insignificant.

5. It is quite precious and is cherished by many people.

I never claimed that life is perfect. However, it isn't an absolute hell without any hope either. Without resorting to angels or demons, there are many people who find joy in seemingly little things, such as reading and gardening. I witnessed this myself due to the time I have spent in a "third world country". Joy can be found in unlikely places, and though it isn't (unfortunately) ubiquitous, at least for now, I do think that it has more than sufficient worth that justifies its preservation. The Eastern tradition also has many other larger beliefs, such as rebirth and the futility of not creating people. However, they also speak of sukkha (happiness) which can be found by minimising unnecessary desires, and I already agree with that idea. Chasing superficial pleasures often leads to harms. I'll return to the main topic now. There certainly is a need to survive, but I don't think that everybody constantly despises it. I, just like many other people, like the process of striving for a greater good, even though I admit that contentment is generally preferable. Again, I am not saying that there aren't hardships, because there clearly are. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that their existence always negates the value of the good parts of life. There is happiness, and there is immense resilience in many cases (I remember the genuine happiness in the eyes of the people who came from what many of us would call terrible conditions). It's often a twofold blessing.

When one adds the fact that happiness is being created from a state of no value, I think it would be misguided and unethical to claim that they don't have significance or deserve to be prevented.

If it is good (and not neutral) to prevent damage even if it prevents some happiness, it can also be bad to prevent all positive experiences for the sake of preventing the negatives. I suppose this would also depend on the nature/scope of happiness and harms, but I don't think that it makes sense to say that it's wrong to create happiness if it also creates harms, but it isn't problematic to prevent all good for the sake of avoiding harm. Alternatively, one could say that non-creation is neutral in both cases, but the formation of the positives is still good.

Once again, once one realises the potency that the positive experiences of life can have for a person, I simply don't think that it can be fair or ethical to suggest that preventing all good (which is not-so-simple in every instance) would be preferable.

There could still be harms for those who desperately want to create a person they would care for, but this isn't my main point. I don't think that this is just about harms; it is also about happiness. For existing people, it might be sufficient to not harm them in order to ensure that they live generally good lives. However, nonexistent people are clearly not in a state of affairs they would have an interest in. If creating suffering is "unnecessary", but preventing it is necessary, then I also think that creating a happy life can also be necessarily good. One could also say that it makes sense to care about preventing harms when one exists, but not before it. But I am not taking such a view at this point of time, so I'll move on.

I don't think that this violates Kant's imperative. Nobody has an interest in not existing that would somehow be violated or disregarded by being created. In Kantian ethics, what might be more pertinent would be to ensure that one truly cares for the person and doesn't create them merely because they wish to have more working hands. However, I do think that one actually respects and exalts the dignity of a person by giving them the opportunity to experience goods they would be deeply grateful for and had no way to solicit prior to existing. On the other hand, I don't think that preventing all goods for the sake of a perspective that doesn't sufficiently focus on the goods would be an ethical intention/act.

I would not say that life is always a "gift"; it could certainly turn bad, which is why I support transhumanism and the RTD so that harms can be reduced. However, I think that the value of a gift comes from the overall good it provides, not from just potential harms.
i) The "no-strings" attached might be relevant if greater value/happiness was achievable without causing the harm caused by the negative aspects of the gift. However, it is evident that nonexistent beings don't exist in a state they have an interest in that would be affected by the "inferior" gift. In many instances, it could be a source of inimitable value that, despite its downsides, can still be quite meaningful.

ii) One doesn't have absolute certainty about anything. Everything does involve a certain degree of risks, such as giving a self-help book to someone that ends up making them miserable. Most people do genuinely seem to wish that the person they create would have a good life, and if the taking the risk can be bad, grabbing the opportunity for happiness can also be good. I think that an agenda to prevent all happiness cannot be considered ethical. Weaving the fabric of all happiness can be immensely good. I don't think that most people intend to create harms. If anything, the existence of numerous NGOs and people committed to social causes like charity does show that people do wish to reduce harm. Being happy doesn't have to come at the cost of harms, especially when it comes to different individuals (not to mention that one can also help others in small ways, such as by making a kind remark). For many people, the blessing outweighs the "burden" by a large margin, and intentionally forming that great joy cannot be unethical in any consistent ethical framework.

Overall, I believe that any time one is unnecessarily preventing significant happiness that nobody could ask for or appreciate prior to existing, they cannot claim that they have accomplished an ultimate good by preventing potential harms.

Yep. I like the "little pepper-corn" analogy. I've mentioned before that the number of new research papers in math alone arriving at Cornell's ArXiv.org surpasses 250 per day. — jgill

Wow. A gentleman in the apartment complex where I live is devoted to math. I asked him what is happening in the math field and he explained there are many sources of information and a lot is going on and he was not moved to speak of any one thing. :lol: I had no idea something like 250 papers per day is what he was talking about. Kind of like someone from a small European country coming to the US and expecting to drive across it in a few hours. The truth of the matter can be overwhelming. And considering my math skills are third-grade level, I can now understand why he didn't want to explain more. You speak of a world of thought that is very foreign to me.

Just part of the inevitable change of life? You mean the inevitable "progress" as part of a lifestyle that has done more harm to humanity than any other form has done and that even claims about itself that it is a lifeform lifted above other forms, as you write yourself. Now every form of life thinks it's the best, but imposing it by force is something completely different. Claiming that beating people in submission in favor of The Way, and that it's only natural this had to happen, that it had to be that way, is not any different from turning people into submission in the name of God. Again, this is no attack against science (I'm one myself!), only a defense of people who want to base living on a different story. — Raymond

I think you speak with much more hindsight than you realize. Only recently have many of us accepted global warming is happening. It is all well and good to look back and look forward and conclude we have not been angels without fault. But I think we should acknowledge this kind of thinking is the result of our progress. We can know more today than ever before and if we were not here, we could not know so much and would not judge ourselves wrong. I think you need to be a little easier on humans who are learning as we go.

If it were not for the technology we have developed fewer people would live to old age and that would be terrible because young people do not have the perspective that is gained with age. We would not be able to feed the world as well as we are doing. We have so much to be thankful for, and I think being thankful or throwing stones, is more about our attitude than anything else.

Indeed! Actually the same kind of military regimes were enabled everywhere in bureaucracy, in the hospitals, in areas hit by pandemics, in factories and in schools. Michel Foucault write about it brilliantly. But actually, the German military, at least in WW2 was so ruthlessly efficient because they allowed field commanders leeway into how to reach objectives. That you describe is known as Taylorism, or Fordism, the mindless deskilled working on the production line. The current 'mobilization' of citizens is far less crude and more insidious than that. We are led to accepting the goals rather mindlessly, but the means. we are taught to think about them. It is much more efficient than thinking ahead in every eventuality. As actually German lawyers learned. Prussia was also one of the first countries with something like 'science of law'. What I mean is, also 'Prussian education' developed. We are no longer in the 19th century. — Tobias

I am so glad you see the expansion of military order throughout the whole of society. You may have been taught to think about the means of achieving goals. But I don't think this comes with education in the US. There are factions that are trying to get us there and the US is on the brink of another civil war!
We are processing a complete change of consciousness and this is a very turbulent process! People are flipping out and gunning down everyone in sight. The storming of our Capitol Building was an organized action and I don't know how anyone can believe Trump did not intentionally inspire it. From what I have heard through television, Germany has made awesome progress and I speak of the US that has not made that progress and is in intense trouble right now. We are at the point where Hitler took over, not where Germany is today.

And I am not sure about everything I have said, but I am trying to think through want you said and my more immediate information gathering that has been hammering away at the industrial model of education. I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it.

If it were not for the technology we have developed fewer people would live to old age and that would be terrible because young people do not have the perspective that is gained with age. We would not be able to feed the world as well as we are doing. We have so much to be thankful for, and I think being thankful or throwing stones, is more about our attitude than anything else. — Athena

I could put the negatives on the list as well. The climate change is one of them. Every form of life has drawbacks and advantages. Science is no exception. The positives and negatives might be seen sooner or later. Vaccince are great. At the same time, had the plane not been invented, cars, subways, ett. there would not have been a global outbreak. The negatives influence everybody though. There is no escape, and not a place in the world is free of its influence. Apart of the + and -, science by force imposes itself on the people, and only when one has money you can buy your way out.

I'm not throwing stones at science per se. Thanks to the story I learned at university I have my own story about creation. Democracy and science started in ancient Greece and philosophers like Plato (with Popper as a "modern" day representative and the Pope a successor Xenophanes), were rediscovered in the Enlightenment (in the blood red light of the atrocities of religion a warm light indeed!), and after they replaced God to impose themselves on humanity, the world got in worse shape than it ever was, and pointing out that people nowadays excell in longevity doesn't change that fact (in the "third" world, people don't grow that old though). I throw stones not at the way as such, nor at the position it puts itself in (the best, which most forms of life think being), but at science forcing itself on the world. By means produced by it. If it advocates, propagates, and practices the way of artificial life, is one thing and up to the people. But turning people into it's obedient slaves is another.

Happiness is intrinsically valuable and it is never unnecessary to not create it, unless it leads to greater loss of value, which I don't think it does. — DA671

Even on the face of it, this could be wrong. You can have lives that have much more suffering. I am not even making his utilitarian argument. Mine is more deontological.

1. If not starting happiness (an intrinsically undesirable experience) is necessary, then starting happiness (an intrinsically preferable experience) can also be good. — DA671

No, one is not entailed in the other. If creating someone's suffering is bad, this does not entail that not creating someone's happiness is bad too. In one case the parent is starting collateral damage, and in the other, simply nothing is happening good or/bad. Not starting happiness creates no bad situation, but starting happiness does (collaterally start bad). That is one of my major points.

There is a state where nobody is happy, and nobody is saved from suffering. — DA671

Not relevant though, which is why I don't phrase it. It is like something "Nothing noths".

. It's definitely good to do so on behalf of someone who cannot ask for the good themselves. — DA671

Absolutely nonsense in the literal (none sense way). Nothing noths nothing noths.. repeat over and over.

The happiness can also be deeply valuable and is experienced by many people; it is not insignificant. — DA671

This bespeaks to the fact that there is a violation of "using someone" by knowingly causing suffering for an X reason (in this case the parent's "pet" reason of "granting happiness".

5. It is quite precious and is cherished by many people. — DA671

Right so you are now just ignoring my objection that post-facto "thumbs up and down" have no relevance to violating the principle of dignity and using people. I push you in a ditch and that helps you out later on and so you approve doesn't mean it was right for me to push you in the ditch. The "Most people" defense has no case against this, sorry. I also think it is highly arrogant and paternalistic to think that you should do something so profound to an individual because you think you are the harbinger of what "Most people" want. You are the judge, jury, executioner of someone else's fate because you think you have a "Most people" mandate. Arrogant. Arrogant. Arrogant. Remember, this isn't like vaccines or something. This isn't using lesser harms to prevent greater harms, you are wholesale creating someone's conditions for suffering because you deem it to be X, Y, Z and "Most people" would want X, Y, Z. There is a difference using the "Most people" defense in this case and when someone already exists and you (have to) ameliorate lesser for greater harms.

I never claimed that life is perfect. However, it isn't an absolute hell without any hope either. — DA671

Doesn't matter. The harm of life is quite objectively frustrating (in the antifrustrationist preference sense), deprivational in nature, and stochastically contains tons of contingently based harms.

However, they also speak of sukkha (happiness) which can be found by minimising unnecessary desires, and I already agree with that idea. Chasing superficial pleasures often leads to harms. I'll return to the main topic now. There certainly is a need to survive, but I don't think that everybody constantly despises it. I, just like many other people, like the process of striving for a greater good, even though I admit that contentment is generally preferable. Again, I am not saying that there aren't hardships, because there clearly are. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that their existence always negates the value of the good parts of life. There is happiness, and there is immense resilience in many cases (I remember the genuine happiness in the eyes of the people who came from what many of us would call terrible conditions). It's often a twofold blessing. — DA671

Irrelevant because this is all after the birth decision. Make do and make peace with yourself, existence, others however you want, that doesn't affect this argument.

When one adds the fact that happiness is being created from a state of no value, I think it would be misguided and unethical to claim that they don't have significance or deserve to be prevented. — DA671

Since there is no such thing as nothing nothing, this doesn't matter. If nothing is noth-ing in its nothingness, who cares? What makes you some "god of procreation" that needs to change the condition because you deem it so, meanwhile creating a state of collateral damage, which did not need to take place? Please justify other than the meaningless words of (intrinsic goods, thus so) that happiness needs to exist in the universe? If no-thing experiences no-thing, so what? All there is is already existing people projecting their hurt that they didn't create anything.

One could also say that it makes sense to care about preventing harms when one exists, but not before it. But I am not taking such a view at this point of time, so I'll move on. — DA671

Yeah because I'm not making that argument. Rather, in one case no collateral damage, in the other case definite collateral damage. So moving on..

I don't think that this violates Kant's imperative. Nobody has an interest in not existing that would somehow be violated or disregarded by being created. In Kantian ethics, what might be more pertinent would be to ensure that one truly cares for the person and doesn't create them merely because they wish to have more working hands. However, I do think that one actually respects and exalts the dignity of a person by giving them the opportunity to experience goods they would be deeply grateful for and had no way to solicit prior to existing. On the other hand, I don't think that preventing all goods for the sake of a perspective that doesn't sufficiently focus on the goods would be an ethical intention/act.

Yeah that's not how that works. Rather, you are still causing harm onto someone unnecessarily. When you use words like "opportunity" you are indeed now using someone, however positively associated that word is connoted. "Hey, I'm going to invest your money for you because I think this might be a great opportunity"... Or a boss who gives his employees more work and says, "This is a great opportunity.." but it's just more work, not an opportunity.. it is something the boss prefers happens and he is spinning it. Doesn't matter if the worker somehow finds joy in that work.. I mean not quite the same because worker is paid.. but it if it goes overtime with no pay for example, well the boss can say it was an "opportunity" all he wants...

I would also say that happiness-causing really has no ethical weight attached to it. It is superogatory. It is good to do if one can, but one is not obligated. One might be a better "person" in some character way for it. There might be a better outcome. But one isn't ethically bound to doing it. Negative ethics, such as not harming people unnecessary seems to hold a different weight. That is to say, causing unnecessary harm, and causing it because YOU want it, is creating unnecessary suffering states of affairs and using people (to get X agenda accomplished). This just seems wrong prima facie as a baseline ethical foundation.

I would not say that life is always a "gift"; it could certainly turn bad, which is why I support transhumanism and the RTD so that harms can be reduced. However, I think that the value of a gift comes from the overall good it provides, not from just potential harms.
i) The "no-strings" attached might be relevant if greater value/happiness was achievable without causing the harm caused by the negative aspects of the gift. However, it is evident that nonexistent beings don't exist in a state they have an interest in that would be affected by the "inferior" gift. In many instances, it could be a source of inimitable value that, despite its downsides, can still be quite meaningful.

Nah. A gift with strings attached is not a gift, no matter how well it might work out, and the strings are not trivial or temporary, so no.

ii) One doesn't have absolute certainty about anything. Everything does involve a certain degree of risks, such as giving a self-help book to someone that ends up making them miserable. Most people do genuinely seem to wish that the person they create would have a good life, and if the taking the risk can be bad, grabbing the opportunity for happiness can also be good. I think that an agenda to prevent all happiness cannot be considered ethical. Weaving the fabric of all happiness can be immensely good. I don't think that most people intend to create harms. If anything, the existence of numerous NGOs and people committed to social causes like charity does show that people do wish to reduce harm. Being happy doesn't have to come at the cost of harms, especially when it comes to different individuals (not to mention that one can also help others in small ways, such as by making a kind remark). For many people, the blessing outweighs the "burden" by a large margin, and intentionally forming that great joy cannot be unethical in any consistent ethical framework.

Overall, I believe that any time one is unnecessarily preventing significant happiness that nobody could ask for or appreciate prior to existing, they cannot claim that they have accomplished an ultimate good by preventing potential harms.

That's why I don't even bring up intention. As long as it is known that collateral damage will result, is good enough.

The truth of the matter can be overwhelming. And considering my math skills are third-grade level, I can now understand why he didn't want to explain more. — Athena

This caught my eye and I'd like to make a short riff on it. My own math skills, not much more than yours, have led to a small epiphany. My own naive understanding had me believing that there was always a place to get to, that I could try to get to. That is, some end point or destination; in maths, for example, the solution to some problem. But, as with the Hubble deep space pictures, or thinking about Antarctica or the Canadian North, or of Mandelbrot sets, or of any of the limitless vistas of math, one realizes there is no real there to get to. It just keeps on going, dwarfing humanity to less than a dot. With that one combines the observations by Farley Mowat of the Inuit of Northern Canada, who spent their lives in trackless wastelands. They, he observed, were never really away from anything, because where they were everything was, their home being wherever they were. (Mowat's example being the comparison of what southerners mistakenly thought the Inuits' homes were, with what they actually were: carelessly built ramshackle huts built of findings v. the caribou skin garments they wore perfected over a few thousand years of development.) A whole entire different understanding of place (and time) and being. I suspect mathematicians and cosmologists, et al, are part Inuit and must be to remain sane.

I didn't say that there could not be instances where the suffering would outweigh the happiness; I am merely saying that this is not the case in most situations.

That's a straw man/misunderstanding. I said that if it can be bad to create damage, it can be good to create happiness. I don't consider the alternative to have any value, but even if it is neutral, it would still be preferable to have a better outcome (happiness), just as it might be preferable to avoid the worse outcome (harm). My major point was that if preventing harm is good, then preventing happiness (an inherently desirable experience) is bad. I think one does entail the other.

It is indeed nothing, which is why I don't think that any comparisons/claims about benefit or harm are meaningful. But I've granted it for the sake of the discussion, so I digress.

It also seems nonsensical (if my point appeared that to you) to talk about "burdening" or "acting on the behalf of other" (as if that has moral relevance) before a person exists. But if it is bad to create suffering on the "behalf" of another person, it is more than sensible to create happiness on the behalf of another who couldn't ask for it. Once again, this is nothing except a logically consistent view, in my opinion.

There's nobody who is being "used" when they are created. Creating a valuable life doesn't have to directly harm another person, and as far the person are concerned, I would argue that it is simply fallacious to use the term "use" (as if the person doesn't have an actual interest in happiness but has one in some alternative state of affairs) for a person who is being created. The "pet" claim about creating damage doesn't negate the value of creating the happiness that the person would likely value. Many people do find the bestowal of a greater good to be in their interest, and, as I have already said, if creating negatives can be unethical, causing happiness can also be good.

I think you're the one who is being arrogant here, my friend. I am sorry, but you have no authority to proclaim that the innumerable ineffably meaningful experiences of people (many of whom have faced intense hardships) are irrelevant because of your single-minded emphasis on the negatives. You have also ignored/misunderstood much of what I said. You had said that people can find existence a burden and difficult to escape, and I only pointed out that others find it precious and value it. Yet, it's strange that you managed to not grasp this simple fact. It's extremely patronising of you to claim that you know that the bestowal of good is a "violation" of dignity instead of being an affirmation of it due to the simple fact that one cannot ask for a good experience before one exists. Harming an existing person isn't good because it reduces their well-being without providing a substantial benefit (in most cases). However, there isn't anybody in the void who prefers not existing, so I don't think that the genesis of happiness can somehow be harmful to them.

It does matter because there are contingent goods that lead to joyous satisfaction which also has significance, even if you don't recognise that. Probabilistically, life also contains many benefits.

Not irrelevant because happiness matters once one exists, just as the harms do when one begins to exist. If the prevention of the latter is "relevant" for you even though it doesn't benefit an actual person (except for your interests, perhaps), then the prevention of all good is quite relevant.

I don't think there's much point in arguing with the "God of non-procreation". The universe does not need the absence of all life, and if no problem comes from the creation of happiness, no good comes from the prevention of suffering. As for existing beings (and assuming non-creation is neutral), it can certainly be good to create meaningful (it does not lose value merely because you don't appreciate it, but I hope this can change), if it is bad to create the harms sans an actual loss for someone who does not even exist.

I am aware you're not, but your other arguments are, sadly, extremely limited and flawed, in my view. There's great good in one instance and none in the other. Moving on indeed.

It does in many more ways than you realise ;)
As I have said countless times before, the harm might be unnecessary, but the happiness isn't (assuming that you believe that the prevention of harm is necessary). When you use words like "using", you are still implying that one is somehow being manipulated (potentially against their interests) to achieve one's "sinister" designs. However, bestowing the chance to experience happiness can certainly be good if one claims that creating damage is bad. There is no need for "use" because the case is analogous to acting on behalf of someone who cannot ask for a good themselves (of course, this assumes that one would consider the deliberate creation of negative lives to be an act of "using" them even though they don't exist). Your examples are poor and reflect a lack of understanding. One could certainly appreciate someone taking an act on their behalf that leads to a greater good. However, it would be pertinent to remember that making money isn't bad if it doesn't even exist in the first place, since the probability of generating profitable income can justify the act of creation, just as the losses might be bad. Giving additional work which doesn't make a person happier might not be good, but there isn't any state of ethereal bliss in the void that is being disturbed/worsened by the creation of a person. At least you could recognise that some people might indeed enjoy the work, and for them, it's a source of happiness. There could be a plethora of reasons, from dedication to one's family to genuine enjoyment in the process of typing (I do have a predilection towards it!). Unfortunately, our current work culture is not the best, which is why I do think that we should focus on resolving many of the issues we face at the moment before indulging in mindless procreation.

I don't think that happiness is less significant than suffering. One might not need to constantly interfere in the case of existing beings who are capable of living adequately meaningful lives as long as they avoid serious harms, but this doesn't apply to people who aren't in a state of affairs they have an interest in. Preventing all happiness for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda, all the while refusing to bestow indelible joys just because one doesn't appreciate it seems to be a fundamentally unethical position to hold.

Neither is the "gift" an ordinary one when it unleashes its potency, which can happen even in the face of seemingly insuperable odds. There undoubtedly are tragic situations that one does need to mitigate (at which point it wouldn't be sensible to call it a "gift", and that's why I don't consider life to be a gift in all cases). When the gift is the source of all value that did not exist before its existence, and many innocent beings would likely find it to be verily invaluable and precious despite the harms, I think it has immense worth that deserves to be preserved. For the last time, happiness is also not "trivial".

I thought that intentions mattered in Kantian frameworks, which is why I had brought it up. However, it's fine if one doesn't care. The cardinal consideration is that powerful joys can exist if a person is created, and as long as that's true for countless sentient beings, it is good enough.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (Germanerl Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress in Education for Democracy, August, 1939) — Athena

Our form of government is a republic. Only very small populations can have direct democracy and there was a time in Athens when every male citizen who came of age had to attend the governing meetings, so everyone understood the reasoning of the law and had an opportunity to change that reasoning, as a meeting of the gods debating until having a consensus. — Athena

Ok, clear enough. But then, what Athens had was no democracy as we understand it. People loving outside the city walls were not citizens, women were not citizens, slaves were not citizens, foreigners were not citizens. Even Aristotle (and I mean Aristotle, not a footnotes in the history of philosophy!) could not vote in Athenian democracy. He was a foreigner, a 'metoik', excluded from many rights the full Athenian citizens had.

I believe it is important we understand democracy as a culture not the form of government. Government is only one aspect of democracy. We retain the power of the people by electing representatives that is a republic. However, again when we are not transmitting that culture through education, we can not manifest democracy any more than a church will manifest Christianity if it puts the Bible in a back corner and teaches math and science instead of Bible stories. — Athena

Ok, so your problem is with a certain cultural identity, an ideal form. It is not a form we have or a form that might have manifested itself fully at any one time, but a certain cultural ideal that you refer to as 'democracy'. I understand it and I am not criticizing it just seeing if we can get our terms straight and aligned. This cultural ideal is built around equality, but also around a set of cultural values. The heroes of old, maybe the battles of old fought by different liberation movements, the stories of old. One peculiar puzzle you face is that the stories of old also relegated the narratives of others to a seat of lesser importance. In the US for instance the stories of the native Americans or stores of people of color. Every American hero you names is a 'dead white man' in popular parlance. I am not the most woke on this forum, but sensitivity to this aspect of 'democracy' is needed. You present it as a rather unproblematic situation that existed in the USA of old, but like Athenian democracy it was made possible by the exclusion of a lot of 'others'. That kind of exclusion is not deemed acceptable anymore so we live in a different society, one cannot without committing grave injustice, revert to a situation of the past.

Why do you think learning about the world is important? I am not saying it is not important but I am struggling with a question of identity and unity. To destroy our sense of identity and cultural agreements could have negative consequences. Wow, could this be a philosophical subject. I somewhat envy Native Americans who have strong tribal identities as this is so different from the "Lonely Crowd" in which most of us live. And that concern of the lonely crowd is the opposite of my concern in the paragraph above, that we lose individual power and the strong leaders we need. :roll: — Athena

Of course the question of identity is a philosophical subject, very much so. It featured and still features prominently in debates on political philosophy between the more liberal inclined thinkers and the so called 'communitarians'. You might really like the work of the communitarian thinker Alisdair Mcintyre. I think the phrase, 'the lonely crowd' is very well put. I think that is the situation we are in.

I don't think what I have said is comprehensible but it is confused. I am afraid this confusion is behind the intense political and social conflict we have now. I think nations can be as in great need of psychoanalysis and individuals. The US is having an identity crisis. — Athena

It is confused because it is a difficult subject in which it is very hard to stay consistent. It is a problem because articulating a new vision for the future is hard. It is also hard to interpret the past, but it is interesting enough. This is our attempt at psychoanlysis. What happened to the spirit of the US, what happened to the spirit of Europe? We are a 'lonely crowd', lonely because we have no common element. However I do not think that American heroes will do it in todays world. We will need a common goal or common threat.

Education for technology has always been education for slaves. Our technology has advanced but it is still for slaves and their society is run by policies they do not make. This mentality wants a Hitler or a Trump, who will make life good for them. They have archy confused with liberty and favor brute force over reason. No matter how technologically smart they may be, that is not equal to wisdom. Raymond seems to be arguing what is wrong with this. — Athena

Raymond seems to be arguing from a romantic environmentalist point of view. I am arguing for a new metaphysics which might well come from an environmentalist perspective, but we cannot let go of tehcnology and I also disagree we are slaves now more then we were in the past. In fact, I will put it more bluntly. The Prussian model has made this kind of criticism possible, because of its system of mass education. the high level of education it provided to many people have spawned the same critical thinkers that now question it. There would never have been a Heidegger, Foucault, Ulrich Beck, to find new paths without this type of education.

I think we are indeed in an existential crisis, but simply going back to the old ways will not do it. In any case a lot of people would die were we to die if we did that. The question is what wisdom is when confronted with such a conundrum. The criticism is made possible by the mass mobilization for science we have undertaken in the past decades.

am so glad you see the expansion of military order throughout the whole of society. You may have been taught to think about the means of achieving goals. But I don't think this comes with education in the US. There are factions that are trying to get us there and the US is on the brink of another civil war!
We are processing a complete change of consciousness and this is a very turbulent process! People are flipping out and gunning down everyone in sight. The storming of our Capitol Building was an organized action and I don't know how anyone can believe Trump did not intentionally inspire it. From what I have heard through television, Germany has made awesome progress and I speak of the US that has not made that progress and is in intense trouble right now. We are at the point where Hitler took over, not where Germany is today.

And I am not sure about everything I have said, but I am trying to think through want you said and my more immediate information gathering that has been hammering away at the industrial model of education. I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena

I was not a happy kid at school and I saw quite keenly what it did. It mobilizes each and every citizen for war and this condition of total mobilization does not leave you. It continues in higher education, in the jobs you undertake, in the time tables you are being regimented into, in the meticulous moment of testing, examination, from university days to child rearing advice... We have a society of mass mobility but also mass mobilization in which you are called to whichever front you are needed, a mercenary plying his trade, going to wherever you are ordered. That is our condition. You would liek to read Ernst Junger I think. Ernst Junger is an old German conservative who saw in the first world war the forge in which a new age was being crafted, the era of the 'worker', but the worker regimented like the soldier... It is a wonderful text eerie in its precociousness of society's self understanding...

I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena

Thanks :sparkle: :flower:

Yep. I like the "little pepper-corn" analogy. I've mentioned before that the number of new research papers in math alone arriving at Cornell's ArXiv.org surpasses 250 per day. — jgill

Yes. I am (we are) a soldier in the mobile army that is science today. You can only stand in awe of the immense brainpower that goes into the 250 articles in one university alone. Most of these articles will not be worth the paper they are printed on, no matter how brilliant they are. They will remain still born. But somehow, somewhere someone may be inspired by one and writes her own article and that might inspire someone and he or she goes on to write something truly great. That is how science works these days, a massive human wave attack.

Most of these articles will not be worth the paper they are printed on, no matter how brilliant they are. They will remain still born — Tobias

Fortunately, it's the exploratory effort that gives them meaning. Publication and citing gives them reward.

it is more than sensible to create happiness on the behalf of another who couldn't ask for it. Once again, this is nothing except a logically consistent view, in my opinion. — DA671

No, it is not sensible to cause happiness IF it comes with strings of collateral damage. That is the part you are missing.

There's nobody who is being "used" when they are created. Creating a valuable life doesn't have to directly harm another person, and as far the person themselves are concerned, I would argue that it is simply fallacious to use the term "use" (as if the person doesn't have an actual interest in happiness but has one in some alternative state of affairs) for a person who is being created. The "pet" claim about creating damage doesn't negate the value of creating happiness that the person themselves would likely value. Many people do find it to be in their interest for someone to bestow a greater good to them, and as I said before, if creating harms can be bad, creating happiness can also be good. — DA671

But WITH collateral damage. There is no free happiness going on here. There is no actual gift.

Not irrelevant because happiness matters once one exists, just as the harms do when one begins to exist. If the prevention of the latter is "relevant" for you even though it doesn't benefit an actual person (except for your own interests, perhaps), then the prevention of all good is quite relevant. — DA671

So I the a priori clam is that collateral damage is taking place in one and not in the other. The a posteriori stuff is a different matter that simply bolsters it.

I don't think there's much point in arguing with the "God of non-procreation". The universe has no need for the absence of all life, and if there is no good that comes from the creation of happiness, there is also none that comes from the prevention of suffering. As for existing beings (and assuming non-creation is neutral), it can certainly be good to create meaningful (it does not lose value merely because you don't appreciate it, but I hope this can change), if it is bad to create the harms sans an actual loss for someone who does not even exist. — DA671

So please parse out the a priori point: Collateral damage, no collateral damage and from the perspective of a parent existing.

The a posteriori points are to bolster it: What the implications are of collateral damage for the future child.

It does in many more ways than you realise ;)
As I have said countless times before, the harm might be unnecessary, but the happiness isn't (assuming that you believe that the prevention of harms is necessary). When you use words like "using", you are still implying that one is somehow being manipulated (potentially against their interests) in order to achieve one's "sinister" designs. However, bestowing the chance to experience happiness can certainly be good if one claims that creating damage is bad. There is no need for "use" because the case is analogous to acting on behalf of someone who cannot ask for a good themselves (of course, this assumes that one would consider the deliberate creation of negative lives to be an act of "using" them even though they don't exist). Your examples are poor and reflect a lack of understanding. One could certainly appreciate someone taking an act on their behalf that leads to a greater good. However, it would be pertinent to remember that making money isn't bad if it doesn't even exist in the first place, since the probability of generating income which is profitable can justify the act of creation, just as the losses might be bad. Giving additional work which doesn't make a person happier might not be good, but there isn't any state of ethereal bliss in the void that is being disturbed/worsened by the creation of a person. At least you could recognise that some people might indeed enjoy the work, and for them, it's a source of happiness. There could be a plethora of reaons, from dedication to one's family to genuine enjoyment in the process of typing (I do have a predilection towards it!). Unfortunately, our current work culture is not the best, which is why I do think that we should focus on resolving many of the issues we face at the moment before indulging in mindless procreation.

All irrelevant. You just made collateral damage in one case and no collateral damage in the other case. Remember, the perspective is from our view.. already living at the point of the a priori argument.

I don't think that happiness is less significant than suffering. One might not need to constantly interfere in the case of existing beings who are capable of living adequately meaningful lives as long as they avoid serious harms, but this doesn't apply to people who aren't in a state of affairs they have an interest in. Preventing all happiness for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda, all the while refusing to bestow a deep good just because one personally doesn't appreciate it seems to be a fundementally unethical position to hold.

It just doesn't have any weight to me. "Preventing happiness for a pessimistic agenda" has no moral worth to anyone. It lacks any moral obligatory force to it. Simply put again, in on instance collateral damage, in the other not. To create collateral damage or not to create it. Think of the term "collateral" as it encapsulates the notion that one is meaning to create happiness, but by doing so, knowingly creates the collateral damage (the strings) that go with it.

Neither is the "gift" an ordinary one when it unleashes its potency, which can happen even in the face of seemingly insuperable odds. Obviously, there are tragic situations that one does need to mitigate (at which point it wouldn't be sensible to call it a "gift", and that's why I don't consider life to be a gift in all cases). When the gift is the source of all value that did not exist prior to its existence, and it's likely that many innocent beings would find it to be verily invaluable and precious despite the harms, I think it has immense worth that deserves to be preserved. For the last time, the happiness is also not "trivial".

Yeah I don't have sympathy for the "Most people" "God of procreation" paternalistic argument. It is just that. Post facto also doesn't matter as I've explained.

I thought that intentions mattered in Kantian frameworks, which is why I had brought it up. However, it's fine if one doesn't care. The cardinal consideration is that powerful joys can exist if a person is created, and as long as that's true for countless sentient beings, it is good enough.

Intention matters to an extent, but intention along with knowing the intention brings with it other things is a sort of overlooking.. This is why I don't deem procreation as evil or monstrous, just misguided.

Question to you personally:
I understand why antinatalists are so passionate about their cause. I am confused more about people such as yourself who are vociferously anti-antinatalism. How is it you came to be so passionately against antinatalism?

A) It is a passive philosophy. It is simply advocating refraining from procreation. It is not advocating violent means or ends or anything like that.

B) It is not widely known. Except people in philosophy circles or niche internet forums, it is pretty much absent from any wider cultural dialogue.. It is basically fringe, if seen at all.. (though maybe, hopefully that is starting to change?). So it provides no threat to the current order of things.. Millions of humans are still being born.

If it's something you saw that I wrote that made you want to debate, is there something compelling you to debate it? I just am curious because most people's responses are negative, with a couple throw away responses, or just ignore it. Every once in a while I get someone who is very keen to debate this thoroughly though, so just trying to get a better understanding of the motivation of that side of things. Is it my particular arguments or just arguments you've heard prior to me, but you have been wanting to get this point across ever since you heard them?

It is a passive philosophy — schopenhauer1

Actually, it's an active philosophy. In the sense it actively ends human existence.

But through passive means.

Yes, but it feels like the easy way out. You in fact say: let's solve the problems humanity is causing by ending humanity all together.

For existing people, perhaps (unless it leads to greater happiness for the person). However, it is sensible to cause a good if it isn't to solely create a harm. You're the one who's missing the point.

I don't think that things need to be perfect for happiness to be sufficiently valuable. It's not the case that everything is terrible either, and I remain reasonably optimistic that we can further reduce our problems. Nevertheless, the positive aspects will always matter and they will continue to be seen as a genuine blessing/gift by many sentient beings, in spite of the damage.

I've already addressed your claim. There is the benefit of happiness taking place in one state of affairs and none taking place in another. The explication is consistent and does not make any unnecessary claims based upon arbitrary double standards. It's clearly about the a priori claim that there is is no good prior to its existence.

Already did ;)
It should not be too difficult to grasp the fact that there is happiness in one case and none other. This "a priori" analysis simply points out the obvious, with further points mainly supporting it. The good occurs for the person. Significant benefit, no benefit, and from the perspective of an existing parent.

The implications also include future happiness for the child that they could cherish.

All relevant, but it's fine if you wish to ignore the obvious. If not creating the damage is good (and not merely neutral), then not creating ineffable happiness can also be problematic. One created good in one case and did not do so in another. The perspective that leads to its prevention is certainly from one who already exists, not the person who would appreciate their life.

It might not matter to you, but it does in reality :p
The fact of the matter is that one has the potential to knowingly create a life that one could deeply love despite the existence of odds, and if it can be considered bad to create a harm even though it doesn't help a person, it can also be good to create happiness. This is the only ethically reasonable perspective, in my view. If preventing the cherished experiences doesn't have moral worth, then I am afraid that the negation of any damage or "strings" also wouldn't matter besides fulfilling the personal interests of an existing person.

I do have some, though increasingly diminishing sympathy, for the pessimistic and paternalistic (preventing damage is more important than anything" argument. All prior and post analysis leads to the ineluctable truth that happiness is significant.

Intentionally bestowing indescribable happiness that the person themselves would likely value even in the face of potential harms can be quite ethical. Intentions do matter, and the intention to prevent suffering is certainly a noble one, even though the conclusion of antinatalism ultimately remains an unsound position.

Preventing good seems to be quite an "active" problem ;)

Much can be lost due to pernicious ideas. Anyway, I am just interested in various topics. I am not sure if I am vociferous; I do try to keep a mild tone :p

1. Currently and mostly. But I agree, you are definitely peaceful.

2. I wouldn't be too happy to see people much wiser than I am (which would be just about everybody!) to believe in a flawed ideology. I didn't join due to you in particular; I just had some time so I figured I may as well read and type some stuff. People certainly continue to be created, but it's nice to see individuals like you who wish to reduce harms, which might be an inspiration for us to become better.

I've heard these arguments many times. Nevertheless, I do enjoy putting forth my views, especially because I am an introvert who cannot discuss these things in real life easily. I did appreciate your insights, so thank you! I hope you have an amazing weekend!

To me, it's either nothing or a "solution" worse than the problem. But the intentions are still good. Also, most people who support AN don't promote authoritarian measures and only peacefully advocate for their point of view.

Here you already start from the picture of a special kind of society. Not having material specializations, doesn't mean no culture. There are lots of cultures based on principles different from the ones entertained by enlightenment. Usually these cultures are called primitive. — Raymond

No, I think you didn't understand what I meant here with specialization. Primitive cultures have specialization and are quite specialized: some are hunters (and they can have different roles in the hunt), some cook and take care of children, some even farm. That is basic specialization. It's really not about "a special kind of society", it's simply how human society differs from let's say a pack of animals. Specialization is one of the basic reasons why societies emerge as they are.

Okay. But I think walking in a world where drones instead of birds rise up from gardens, the sound of geese that are still left flying over is overscreamed by the roar of jumbo jets and the bang jet fighters breaking the sound of speed five times, conflicts are fought with atomic bombs instead of fists, the light of moon is replaced by artificial lantern light, the elephant path is replaced by endless tarmac strips, talking is replaced by communication, a house is replaced by skyscrapers trying to reach for heaven in vain, intelligence is tried to be captured on a computer chip and robots are considered the next step in evolution, instead of walking we move in structures with wheels, the world is watched on a 2d screen instead of seen directly, nature is put into isolated and air-conditioned canopies, the beach is created in cold areas and a 3km long snow piste recreated in the dessert, and nowhere in the world there are absences of the recreations, I find that world alienating, mind fucking, and depressing. It's there and there is no escape. Science won't help us, if technology is precisely the cause of trouble. As Einstein once wisely pointed out: "the solution of a problem never can reside in what caused the problem". Fighting fire with fire? Hmm...

I understand.

But is that at all really about "The Enlightenment"?

Or would you find all that criticism you are talking about in Ancient Rome where a huge complex logistics structure with huge long aqueducts, roads and an enormous harbour is created to feed the million inhabitants of the City? To feed a million city dwellers every day, especially in Antique Times, is a huge technological feat as you needed Africa to supply the grain to the Capitol. And then look at the Imperial system: a former Republic that boast militarism and keeps the masses and the rabble happy with free bread and violent circus acts? Doesn't that sound familiar to our times?

I think that the Romans would have gladly taken on new inventions like gun powder weapons or gotten the steam engine to replace the slave workers and put the slaves into better use. They surely would have used that technology to overcome their enemies, the barbarians, and surely would have invaded what we now call Iran and perhaps continued further. What's the difference between a Ballista and a field howitzer other than the latter is immensely more lethal? The Romans already had a society that relied on using technology, having entertainment as "the opium" for the masses and all the negative aspects you mention. And above all, the Roman society was ruled by the rich and molded in their favor. There was no religion limiting the study of science in Rome. It just didn't happen back then. But I think that Romans would very gladly accepted modern materialism. After all, they had orgies where people threw up on purpose just to eat more.

So if Enlightenment increased our scientific understanding and this lead to technological innovations, perhaps to see Enlightenment as the bad guy here is a bit unfair. Perhaps it isn't technology, but something else, how you use technology. Because in Rome, already, and in other cultures too, technology served the military and served the rich to become more rich.

Also, the Enlightenment gave us also ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state. Why would those things be bad?

Also, the Enlightenment gave us also ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state. Why would those things be bad? — ssu

All very good things indeed! According to me and you. The thing is though, that after church and state were divorced, a new happy engagement was celebrated and a big global party was organized. After the di-forced divorce, all people on the globe were obliged to dance to the scientific imperative. The scientific view of the ancient Greek was rediscovered by a small group of people who rightly didn't like the church imperatives and dethroned God. It put his crown on and protected and empowered by state it formed a new kind of God. A secular one and the world had and has to dance to her music. But not everyone likes the same music, like everybody has different notions of progress, freedom, toleration, fraternity, and government. It's a sad situation. In fact we find ourselves in the same situation as Galileo found himself back then, but the role of God replaced by Science. Let's hope the state will open her eyes and become aware of the situation, so she can reign alone, independent as state must be, not falling for romantic flirting of whatever calibre, be it God, Science, or Make Believe the second.

Ok, clear enough. But then, what Athens had was no democracy as we understand it. People loving outside the city walls were not citizens, women were not citizens, slaves were not citizens, foreigners were not citizens. Even Aristotle (and I mean Aristotle, not a footnotes in the history of philosophy!) could not vote in Athenian democracy. He was a foreigner, a 'metoik', excluded from many rights the full Athenian citizens had. — Tobias

What an absolutely delightful argument!

Hold on to your chair because I am going to get very cynical. :wink:

Since when did the fate of the poor become the government's concern and the government paying for child care?! :scream: Really, you want women mucking around in government? That appears to lead to a nanny state and the destruction of our capitalism because of the evil of socialism. And as for those foreigners, do you want them coming in and having a say in government?

I don't know how aware of US politics you are but those concerns did not end with the fall of Greek city/states. The end of patriarchy and that social order, has been traumatic. And God knows, those refugees flooding into our country pose a serious threat! And the last thing we should do is open our borders and give them voting rights! And it is even a problem to give people of color voting rights, even if they are technically citizens. Trump won the election and Biden should not be living in the White House, and this is a very serious matter. This is so serious it was okay to storm the Capitol Building in an effort to prevent the wrong man from being president.

Okay, enough of me venting. Tensions are running very high right now and I very much appreciate having a different preceptive in an international forum. I don't think the US looks very civilized compared to some European countries that have more experience with being civilized. Advanced science and technology is changing everything and thanks for noticing when I speak of democracy it is an ideal not limited to the US.

On to a more thoughtful reply to your post.

After the di-forced divorce, all people on the globe were obliged to dance to the scientific imperative. — Raymond

I don't think so. Just look at the Muslim countries. They are still religious. No Muslim Nietzsche.

The scientific view of the ancient Greek was rediscovered by a small group of people who rightly didn't like the church imperatives and dethroned God. — Raymond

Yet look at how many scientist have been religious. How many have tried to prove the existence of God? The idea that all scientist are or especially have been atheists is wrong.

And do note that totalitarian regimes can have scientists and engineers making even good science. And what's the problem for those in power when the scientist write their discoveries in the most politically correct way? Simple truth is that scientific inquiry and political totalitarianism can both succeed. Totalitarianism and Enlightenment ideas doesn't go in hand in hand, so no wonder Enlightenment is under attack, actually.

In fact we find ourselves in the same situation as Galileo found himself back then, but the role of God replaced by Science. — Raymond

Only fools will try to argue that with science you can find a solution on what is morally right or morally wrong. Objective science just tells how things are (assuming you have the correct model or premisses). There's still place for religion and philosophy separate of science. And it isn't so unimportant as some atheist scientist might argue.

And what you seem to be talking about is more of Scientism, the view that science is the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values and subjectivity doesn't matter, is different. Religion is first and foremost a belief system. It's about faith, not reason. Even the Bible says to find faith in your heart, not to "use your brain and think it out".

Ok, so your problem is with a certain cultural identity, an ideal form. It is not a form we have or a form that might have manifested itself fully at any one time, but a certain cultural ideal that you refer to as 'democracy'. I understand it and I am not criticizing it just seeing if we can get our terms straight and aligned. This cultural ideal is built around equality, but also around a set of cultural values. The heroes of old, maybe the battles of old fought by different liberation movements, the stories of old. One peculiar puzzle you face is that the stories of old also relegated the narratives of others to a seat of lesser importance. In the US for instance the stories of the native Americans or stores of people of color. Every American hero you names is a 'dead white man' in popular parlance. I am not the most woke on this forum, but sensitivity to this aspect of 'democracy' is needed. You present it as a rather unproblematic situation that existed in the USA of old, but like Athenian democracy it was made possible by the exclusion of a lot of 'others'. That kind of exclusion is not deemed acceptable anymore so we live in a different society, one cannot without committing grave injustice, revert to a situation of the past. — Tobias

Absolutely and I am puzzled by your ability to understand what I am saying because my fellow citizens do not. If I were rich and younger, I would have to visit your country and study its education system in an effort to understand why you think differently from the nation that makes me rant like a crazy person.

I think we should come to understand democracy by reading the Greek and Roman classics and then perhaps visiting other countries to see who well they are working with the principles. Democracy is a complex concept and we need to understand the complexity.

Yes, it is about heroes and stories about the struggle to have justice and liberty for all, but not totally. Oh dear, you cause me to think deeply on this and it is difficult as giving birth to a child! It has become popular in the US to attack heroes. It is being said the effort to be a hero makes people terrible human beings. Our national heroes were strong, independent leaders and we destroyed them. We had education for independent thinking. Now we are voting party tickets, with ministers telling their congregations how to vote, and we prepared our young four "group think". This is a serious social, economic, and political change.

Your fault-finding, that the stories are about dead white men has truth but is not totally true. I believe I mentioned the hero stories were multinational. A huge part of our cultural education was European folk tales and our explanation of our democracy begins with the Magna Carta. We were able to teach morals without depending on religion by using those folk tales that are about virtues. True this Euro-centric education did not include people of color or Native Americans and that fault should be considered. On the other hand, our federal government was strongly influenced by Native Americans. They had a federation of tribes and were closer to the Greek city/state organization than European kingdoms and that helped those who were literate in the classics understand that past history.

Because I have collected old textbooks, I know some textbook publishers did a better job than others. :lol: My favorite children's history book is very quaint. Technically it is more of a fairy tale than fact, but that book has more cultural value than the technically correct ones, that are so dry it is cruel and inhuman punishment to make a child read them. The book I like best, begins the explanation of democracy with Athens, not the Magna Carta.

The hold Christianity has on the US needs to be understood. The Bible was used to justify slavery and to argue against it. When people believe they are doing the will of God, they have the strength of that belief, and the Civil War with two opposing ideas of God's will was especially intense. The Christian control of education has been problematic, and the South's control of education has also been problematic when it comes to racism. We are now dealing with the Christian mythology of our democracy and that is a huge problem!

"That kind of exclusion is not deemed acceptable anymore so we live in a different society, one cannot without committing grave injustice, revert to a situation of the past." How are natives with different languages and different cultures included? Some of them wanted to be included and they were treated terribly. Others did not want to be included and did their best to defend their land but lost.
We are not that far from killing each other for control of land. And with intense pain, many of us feel, if native Americans controlled our evolution instead of Christians and Europeans, we would not have global warming. Christianity prevented us from accepting the earth as one living organism that needs to be protected.

The situation with people with African heritage is an extremely difficult one! You might remember we fought a civil war over than one, and the matter was not resolved with a civil war. We are still in an intense fight to preserve the past or bring about radical change. I read a book about education that was published only a few years ago, that was extremely racist! :scream: Science is making a huge difference but as you might see in your news of the US, we are at each other throats over if we should wear masks or get vaccinated. I am saying, we are not very scientific. That problem falls back to ignorance of Athens and what science has to do with good moral judgment. and democracy.

You found fault with Athens and that is justified, but we also need to understand what it had to do with science and good moral judgment, and democracy. Democracy is constantly evolving. The direction that evolution takes, can increase human potential or destroy the democratic nation. When we look at the racist problem we are dealing with, it validates what Socrates said about exploiting people. Sooner or later the exploited people will become a problem. We have sown a racist seed in our democracy and are far from your understanding of what is wrong with it.

Of course the question of identity is a philosophical subject, very much so. It featured and still features prominently in debates on political philosophy between the more liberal inclined thinkers and the so called 'communitarians'. You might really like the work of the communitarian thinker Alisdair Mcintyre. I think the phrase, 'the lonely crowd' is very well put. I think that is the situation we are in. — Tobias

I found an Alisdair Mcintyre speech on-line
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191001-dunbars-number-why-we-can-only-maintain-150-relationships#:~:text=The%20theory%20of%20Dunbar's%20number,about%20150%20connections%20at%20once.

I think the "lonely crowd" is unavoidable because of our human nature that includes limited social capacity. We are lucky to know 600 people by name. The number of people we can really know is much less. "There are well-defined limits to the number of friends and acquaintances the average person can retain." https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191001-dunbars-number-why-we-can-only-maintain-150-relationships#:~:text=The%20theory%20of%20Dunbar's%20number,about%20150%20connections%20at%20once . I don't care about the details other than establishing when it comes to being social there are very real biological limits. We can compensate by becoming members of smaller groups, such as a church, or a professional group, or a fraternity. Prejudices play into this biological fact. We might avoid Mormons or people of color or people with another difference that to our mind separates "us" from "them". We must have mercy for each other because it just isn't easy being human and we are demanding far too much from each other than what is reasonable.

This is where the importance of "customs" and "good manners" comes in. We can compensate for our limits by sharing customs and ideas of good manners. If a total stranger claims to be Christian then this person becomes "one of us" making religion essential to the formation of civilizations. I like my grandmother's 3 rules.

1. We are respectful to everyone because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other is because it is about own character as a respectful person or an uncouth jerk.

2. We protect the dignity of others.

3. We do everything with integrity.

I think that covers just about any situation?

but simply going back to the old ways will not do it. In any case, a lot of people would die were we to die if we did that. The question is what wisdom is when confronted with such a conundrum. The criticism is made possible by the mass mobilization for science we have undertaken in the past decades. — Tobias

:lol: In the old days, I left home early in the morning and did my own thing all day and then went home when people began turning their lights on. I don't think it is safe to give our children that much freedom today. We didn't lock the doors to our house or car and we lived in a Los Angeles suburb. :lol: If you can find the movie "Blast From the Past" it makes an interesting statement about social change where I grew up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhMQOb0tEmI More has changed than our understanding of science. We no longer have the culture that we and that is why I write!

This does not mean I am stuck in the past because I believe if we do not self-destruct, we are transitioning into a New Age, that is so different from the past, people in the New Age will not be able to relate to our primitive past. Exploiting each other and nature as we have done up to this point will be unthinkable. Dressing people in uni-forms and having them march into the enemy's weapons will be unthinkable, but dropping bombs on the enemy may still occur? I like what Alisdair Mcintyre says in the speech because he mentions what a culture and time in history has to do with our concept of morals. It is also a political matter. We now have reactionary politics based more on our feelings than our intellect. When making decisions we look inward to see how we "feel" about this or that, not evaluate how it fits with our principles. What are principles? We have a culture that is so unsure of everything we are powerless to do anything but follow orders to get what we want. This is not a good stopping place for the future.

This caught my eye and I'd like to make a short riff on it. My own math skills, not much more than yours, have led to a small epiphany. My own naive understanding had me believing that there was always a place to get to, that I could try to get to. That is, some end point or destination; in maths, for example, the solution to some problem. But, as with the Hubble deep space pictures, or thinking about Antarctica or the Canadian North, or of Mandelbrot sets, or of any of the limitless vistas of math, one realizes there is no real there to get to. It just keeps on going, dwarfing humanity to less than a dot. With that one combines the observations by Farley Mowat of the Inuit of Northern Canada, who spent their lives in trackless wastelands. They, he observed, were never really away from anything, because where they were everything was, their home being wherever they were. (Mowat's example being the comparison of what southerners mistakenly thought the Inuits' homes were, with what they actually were: carelessly built ramshackle huts built of findings v. the caribou skin garments they wore perfected over a few thousand years of development.) A whole entire different understanding of place (and time) and being. I suspect mathematicians and cosmologists, et al, are part Inuit and must be to remain sane. — tim wood

That is truly beautiful but also terrifying! I think my head just can not comprehend it. I am not comfortable with being lost in space and time. It is like being naked and vulnerable. But who I am should not depend on externals, right?