The climate change is one of them. — Raymond

But without science, no one would know we have global warming. People would still think everything is about the will of a god, and if that god is pleased with us or not.

Plagues and famines, earthquakes and hurricanes, etc. have always been part of human history. Bad things happened long before technology and human beings were sacrificed to the gods to keep us save from their wrath.

We could not know about global warming until we had the problem and the technology to measure everything and understand the problem. We need to process this information and decide how we are to manage it. That is moving forward not backward. However, learning from the past could be vital to moving forward. A big problem with that is human populations are too large to maintain without modern technology. I think we are backed into a corner that it is going to be very hard to get out of.

But without science, no one would know we have global warming — Athena

Without science, we wouldn't have had a global warming in the first place. What else than science is responsible? Scientists themselves admit that. One doesn't need science though to figure out that pumping shitty gas (excuse the expression) in the atmosphere on a global scale will have repercussions. When the Krakatau exploded the weather changed notably for a few years.
So blaming the gods is ridiculous.

Plagues and famines, earthquakes and hurricanes, etc. have always been part of human history. Bad things happened long before technology and human beings were sacrificed to the gods to keep us save from their wrath. — Athena

True. And just like science is used nowadays to spare us from our own wrath on nature, while nature is increasingly the victim of scientific beating, people back then had their own means of coping. Rain dances, rituals, or whatever. Offerings included. But at least, nature was left alone, to a higher extent than these days.

We could not know about global warming until we had the problem and the technology to measure everything and understand the problem. We need to process this information and decide how we are to manage it. That is moving forward not backward. However, learning from the past could be vital to moving forward. A big problem with that is human populations are too large to maintain without modern technology. I think we are backed into a corner that it is going to be very hard to get out of — Athena

And again, we would not have the problem without science . The problem is obvious now. What information needs to be processed? Emission needs to be reduced, energy generation sustainable and clean, and the young be freed from the tyranny of the sciences (again: this is no attack on science, only on the power position it claims and demands). If there is overpopulation remains to be seen, but also here, science seems the cause, if we take a look at history.

True. And just like science is used nowadays to spare us from our own wrath on nature, while nature is increasingly the victim of scientific beating, people back then had their own means of coping. Rain dances, rituals, or whatever. Offerings included. But at least, nature was left alone, to a higher extent than these days. — Raymond

That is not exactly true. Primitive lifestyles were not always eco-friendly. The most common problem was deforestation. Easter Island is a good example of the problem. When all the trees were cut down, the people could not build boats and meet their dietary needs by fishing. That led to eating everything on the island, which finally lead to cannibalism. The next most serious problem is just exhausting the soil.

Around 3,000 years ago, farmers settled on the fertile Loess Plateau in western China, a region about the size of France. By the 7th century, the rich soils were feeding about one quarter of the Chinese population. But intense pressure on the land eroded the soil. By the 20th century, desertification had condemned the remaining population to poverty. “It was a desperate place,” says Juergen Voegele, an agricultural economist and engineer at the World Bank who first visited the region in the mid-1980s. But that would soon change. https://rethink.earth/turning-desert-to-fertile-farmland-on-the-loess-plateau/ — RICHARD BLAUSTEIN

Here is a list of animals humans hunted for food until they became extinct. https://www.britannica.com/list/6-animals-we-ate-into-extinction

Civilizations collapsed because of exhausting the region's ability to support life. In the past, people would just move to another area. Today they can not do that because there are people everywhere. The problem is not just created by science and technology. The problem is also our success and the increased humanity.

Where humans are consuming groundwater, they are nearing a disaster as they are consuming that water faster than it is replaced, and soon those regions will become deserts. Another problem is the limit of minerals essential to making fertilizer. The planet can not support the mass of humanity.

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 like 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... — Tobias

Okay, I have to read that! He published a few books and I am not sure which one is the most important to my effort. I am too tired to figure it out now.

I have started a blog for the purpose of documenting my concern about the military-industrial complex. Would you know which book is the best for explaining the era of the "worker"? I really do not care about the gory details of war. It is what an increasingly high-tech military has done to the whole of society that concerns me. Or maybe I do not need his book but can simply go with your explanation? How much of an explanation of your perspective can you give us? Might I use it in the blog?

This is why I could not complete my book. I am constantly learning something new. I love the idea of a blog where can just add information as I become aware of it.

Well, humanity is down with viraemia (resembles septicaemia). (A little) fever (global warming) is expected.

That is not exactly true — Athena

Not exactly. But approximately.

When all the trees were cut down, the people could not build boats and meet their dietary needs by fishing. That led to eating everything on the island, which finally lead to cannibalism. The next most serious problem is just exhausting the soil. — Athena

Just like I said, they had their own way of coping.

Civilizations collapsed because of exhausting the region's ability to support life. — Athena

Most of these though collapsed by the devastating effects of science.

Where humans are consuming groundwater, they are nearing a disaster as they are consuming that water faster than it is replaced, and soon those regions will become deserts. Another problem is the limit of minerals essential to making fertilizer. The planet can not support the mass of humanity. — Athena

The huge number of people is caused by the disruptive power of science. Earth, if not being beaten in submission by technology and transformed in a homogenous, uniform field where only one species grows, which is protected by artificial raffinated chemicals and collected by enormous automated machines. There are virtually no people left who collect their own food, except for tramps looking in garbage bins, people owing a small piece of land. Collecting your own food is even prohibited or allowed with permission only. You can't claim your own piece of nature and build your own life settle. Who says that nature is not capable in providing for all, if left alone?

Who says that nature is not capable in providing for all, if left alone? — Raymond

You might think about the answer for yourself. One of the most damaging things we do is have huge farms that require huge amounts of fertilizer. The job of the man who explained this type of farming had the job of helping small farmers become more successful. He realized these small farmers could not produce enough to feed the mass of humanity that was in desperate need of affordable food. The food shortage was a crisis and so was throwing them off the land and replacing them with huge corporations, a crisis. Leaving now landless farmers with no source of income. The very people he was supposed to help, were hurt, but the masses had more food.

You probably know the problems with relying on manufactured fertilizer. That fertilizer runs off and gets into rivers and then oceans and is a serious pollutant. A main ingredient in fertilizer is oil and right now our method of extracting oil from the ground is seriously polluting.

Every living cell must have potassium and phosphorus and we get those minerals through our food but potassium is not naturally abundant. Morocco has almost half the world's known supply of phosphate deposits and our food supply is dependent on it because it goes into our fertilizer. Only when the ground has a lot of a mineral is profitable to mine it. China, the US, Africa, and a few other nations depend on the Morocco supply of phosphate and it is finite. So what do we do? Stop mining for phosphate that goes into our fertilizer, which then pollutes the rivers and oceans?

If you want to argue what is wrong with our lifestyle of abundance, there are some really good books. If you want to know what mineral resources have had to do with history and future wars, see if you can get Walter Youngquist books,"Natural Resources and the Destiny of Nations" and "GeoDistinies". "Abandon Affuelence!" by F.E. Trainer will give you some good talking points. That book covers- "The review of recent evidence on major global problems examines resources and energy scarcity, environmental destruction," and more.

There is no doubt our way of life is not sustainable. It is like we are riding a bicycle that is going faster and faster and as we go downhill, and we don't know how to put the breaks on. The problem is, if we don't put the breaks on, we go over a cliff. How do we safely slow the bike down?

But please give up the notion that we can just return to a simpler way of life and everything will be okay. Life has always been a challenge and people have always destroyed their environments when they stayed there too long. Marvelous civilizations fall when the soil and other resources are exhausted. The economy of Rome depended on gold mines and chasing after the gold required a huge militarily expensive, just as the US exhausted its own easily accessible oil and needs to use military force to secure its mid-east supply of oil. When the gold was exhausted, Rome abandoned the northern part of Europe, and Rome itself, as the power elite moved east to Constantinople, closer to newly discovered gold mines. There is no place for us to move and we can not absorb the mass of humanity that is fleeing desperate poverty.

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. — DA671

Yes mix. What makes starting unnecessary harm that is non-trivial, lasts a lifetime's worth, and inescapable ever good to start? I'm sorry but because happiness can also happen too is not a good enough reason to knowingly cause the conditions just described regarding suffering. At the very least it is being naive. It is also callous once one takes the suffering into consideration. And there is the crux of most of our differences.

There is also an element of arrogant paternalism. Start a family for X reason (try to spin it as happiness, or more likely to create some sort of meaning lacking in the parent's lives not having children). It is certainly using someone for an ends, if the fact that the person's suffering is being bypassed. Happiness doesn't compensate for the bypass, I'm sorry. You don't get to create conditions of harm so that you can also create conditions of happiness. Creating happiness isn't a "get out of jail free card". Since there's no such thing as "free lunch", don't create the situation whereby the person has to pay for that lunch.

I am afraid that I would have to disagree with the conclusion that the possibility of harm (which I do favour preventing and reducing as much as possible) can negate the value of a life that's permeated by experiences one finds indescribable value in, even if they face adversities along the way. I do not feel that I can justify the idea that the life of that child from the slum who finds immense joy in just living with his family does not deserve to exist (assuming that preventing the harms is good). There's not much that makes it ethical to prevent a life that is cherished, precious, and a source of ethereal happiness for a person. It's incredibly uncaring and narrow-minded, in my view, to arbitrarily judge that the creation of innumerable positive lives is an act that is not ethical; it is. The crux of the difference is the ability to recognise that solving a problem cannot come at the cost of nullifying all good.

It's much more paternalistic to suggest that one's own perspective justifies the cessation of all positive experiences, since it's evident to me that if it can be good to prevent harms, it can also be bad to prevent the positives. And no, intentionally creating a life that could experience immense goods does not use them as mere means to an end, since the person themselves have no interest that is being disregarded from their creation. And I do not think that not creating a person treats them as an "end in themselves" either. If it did, it would probably include using them as mere means to the end of eliminating suffering, despite the fact that it isn't the case that they would always have irredeemably negative experiences. But as far as creating people is concerned, I do think that creating the person with the right intentions and caring for them properly does treat them as ends in themselves. Not starting a good for reason X (an unreasonably high desire to prevent harm at the cost of all good) isn't a particularly wise perspective either. I don't think that one always needs to be harmed in order to be happy, though it's true that many harms (for now) do exist. However, one is not "creating the conditions of harm" for an existing person who is already happy. I have already said that it's wrong to do so for existing beings unless it leads to a greater happiness for them. But nonexistent beings don't have perceive the void has a desideratum that would somehow be cruelly distanced by their mere creation. The cardinal consideration remains the value/disvalue they might experience, and I am sorry, but your (or mine!) personal viewpoint simply does not justify not creating the conditions for all happiness just because you (or I) fail to find sufficient significance in life. I do hope that more people could see things in a different light. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is a "cure" much worse the problem it allegedly "solves". Since there is no such thing as eternal bliss prior to creation that's negatively affected by the genesis of ineffable happiness, one should not hold views that lead to unfathomable losses that outweigh any gain. Btw, 100,000 people do get free lunch in the Golden Temple, though paying money for preserving the good can certainly be worth it ;)

Hope you have a nice week ahead!

Edit: Also, I should add that I absolutely agree with the general idea that many people do create beings solely because of reasons that don't necessarily pertain to the person themselves, such as wanting more working hands. This is deeply unfortunate, but I am hopeful (partially due to the existence of compassionate people like you!) that more people would give birth to a person because they would want them to have a good life, something that is certainly in their interest if the lack of harm is not in their interest (in an abstract sense, of course, since nobody exists in the void to have a desire for existence/nonexistence), which would mean that the person would be seen as end themselves.

I am afraid that I would have to disagree with the conclusion that the possibility of harm (which I do favour preventing and reducing as much as possible) — DA671

But apparently you don't, because you would agree with the AN conclusion :D.

I do not feel that I can justify the idea that the life of that child from the slum who finds immense joy in just living with his family does not deserve to exist (assuming that preventing the harms is good). — DA671

Wrong argument.. "deserve to exists" is about him already existing. And you can't sum up that person's life as "Immense joy in just living with his family" without giving the complete story. It isn't THE END at the end of it.. all happiness. So no, I will not let you characterize it that way for a pat little argument.

The crux of the difference is the ability to recognise that solving a problem cannot come at the cost of nullifying all good. — DA671

Why? The "problem" is suffering/harm/negative experiences.. and it certainly can be solved. I don't presume to cause someone suffering because happiness is involved for them. What an arrogant pissy response attitude towards others.. Hiding under the mask of "Well, I'll cause them harm because happiness!".. You know, smile while you kill sort of thing but much more subtle.. I can see it though.

It's much more paternalistic to suggest that one's own perspective justifies the cessation of all positive experiences — DA671

Just not the argument. I am not saying to kill what exists, but not start harm, so moving on.

it can also be bad to prevent the negatives. — DA671

Ah, here we go. The callous, Nietzschean, inevitable cliched riff about "Struggle creates meaning" and why should we prevent that for someone? Callous sadism dressed as Nietzschean ubermenchian finery... moving on.

And no, intentionally creating a life that could experience immense goods does not use them as mere means to an end, since the person themselves have no interest that is being disregarded from their creation. — DA671

No I won't let that slide. You are using someone because you disregard their harm for X reason. Moving on.

If it did, it would probably include using them as mere means to the end of eliminating suffering, — DA671

Since they don't exist, don't even try to make that argument.. this is about you violating a principle not the non existent thing being used.. as we both know it doesn't exist to be used.. The only scenario where it's being used is the one you advocate, that is, being born!

I do think that creating the person with the right intentions and caring for them properly does treat them as ends in themselves. — DA671

No, that is a means to the caregiver's ends.. Next.

However, one is not "creating the conditions of harm" for an existing person who is already happy. I have already said that it's wrong to do so for existing beings unless it leads to a greater happiness for them. — DA671

Oh I am not a crass utilitarian so I wouldn't even pay attention to this when ethically reasoning. Maybe politics or something. I don't use people's conditions for suffering for my own happiness. That would be wrong, and misguided.

But nonexistent beings don't have perceive the void has a desideratum that would somehow be cruelly distanced by their mere creation. — DA671

Stop making it about the void. I am not talking about the void. I am talking about NOT MAKING SUFFERING, PERIOD. Not making the void feel better.. That's your straw manning argument.

The cardinal consideration remains the value/disvalue they might experience, and I am sorry, but your (or mine!) personal viewpoint simply does not justify not creating the conditions for all happiness just because you (or I) fail to find sufficient significance in life. — DA671

So now are you really taking the position that we are obligated to create "happiness"? That is an actual ethical obligation, or just your preference?

I do hope that more people could see things in a different light. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is a "cure" much worse the problem it allegedly "solves". — DA671

Well, it is ethical at least. No person is being used. No person is here to be a solution for something. Again, using people, now as a solution.. Let's create conditions with cancer so we can have people to cure it.. self-fulling perpetuating nonsensical thinking.

Since there is no such thing as eternal bliss prior to creation that's negatively affected by the genesis of ineffable happiness, one should not hold views that lead to unfathomable losses that outweigh any gain. — DA671

Huh?

I wouldn't, because I don't accept extreme views that ignore one side of the coin :)

The right argument. Preventing harm for a person doesn't have any value either if the creation of goods doesn't matter. And there are also those who have turned around their lives in spite of suffering a lot, so I will not be accepting an incomplete image that suits your agenda.

A statement that appears to be devoid of all sense. Once again, there is a difference between causing a situation that would cause harm which won't leave to more happiness, and creating the conditions for immense joy that a person would value despite the existence of harms. "What's that? You believe that love and beauty deserve more consideration than being callously disregarded for the sake of preventing 'damage'? Yeah, your view is irrelevant." Is a terrible perspective, much of which may not be intentional. The "benefit" is happiness, the the "problem" would be to negate it.

Just not getting the obvious point that if not creating harms would be good, ceasing the creation of happiness would also eventually stop all good, which wouldn't be ethical. I wasn't talking about any termination. Moving on.

It was an error that I corrected in the edit I made a few minutes ago. However, negatives that lead to more value might certainly be worthwhile, though they only possess instrumental value. However, struggle can indeed create happiness, such as the struggle of studying hard to achieve good grades. Continuing forward.

It can be difficult to accept the truth. You are not "using" anybody because the "person" has no interest that would be unnecessarily (without a greater joy they would achieve) harmed by being created. Intentionally creating the conditions for a good one cannot ask for themselves can certainly be good if it can be good to prevent harm.

Since they don't exist, you should also not be making absurd claims such as "using" one to an end or making spurious claims such as "causing harms for x reason (happiness)" as if the happiness isn't in the interest of the person (if avoiding harm is in their interest even though they don't exist) or it is something trivial (hint: it's not). Being born is indeed the only way to experience happiness ;)

If preventing harm sans any actual benefit to a person is not using them as a means to an end, one is also not using anyone as means to an end, since there isn't anybody whose interests are being violated by their creation. Your inability to differentiate between situations involving existing people and those who don't exist yet has evidently caused grave confusion. Moving on.

Blind deontology that leads to intense harm for innumerable individuals for the sake of some "principles" might not be a good idea, but this isn't relevant, because I was talking about happiness for the person. Also, it would still be important for a utilitarian to ensure that happiness is maxmised for as many people as possible. But the point was about joys for the person, so I digress.

It's not a straw man; that's your inability to recognise the double standards when making the absurd claim that it's necessary to prevent harms even though it doesn't benefit anybody, but it's inexplicably insignificant to create valuable experiences.

For existing beings, I think avoiding harms can generally allow people to live valuable lives, so I don't think constant interference is necessary. Personally, I do not think that there is any inherent value in creation/non-creation, but for the sake of the discussion, I do think that if it's bad to create negatives, it's also good to create positives. Still, the expectations have to take practical limitations and the well-being of people in the long term into account.

Your pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy that prevents you from realising the potency of happiness. For the last time, creating happiness is not "using them", since that implies disregarding interests (that don't actually exist for a nonexistent being). However, it's quite apparent that if preventing harm can be good, it can also be problematic to avert all possibility of joy. Letting a mango tree that gives succulent fruits die out just because there might be a few bad ones seems nonsensical to me. Preventing all joy as a solution to your pessimistic desires is not justifiable.

Yup.

The right argument. Preventing harm for a person doesn't have any value either if the creation of goods doesn't matter. And there are also those who have turned around their lives in spite of suffering a lot, so I will not be accepting an incomplete image that suits your agenda. — DA671

No man, you are arguing an uphill battle despite you thinking that you have the "Most people" defense on your side. You are defending creating suffering for others. Whatever justifications you want to appeal to aside, you are doing this nonetheless. Callous and using, this is. If you are a person who doesn't want to create suffering, there you go. In one instance there is no collateral damage. In the other, you have created collateral damage. Happiness is not obligatory to make, not creating suffering is. You don't need a person to exist to be prevented of suffering for this to be true. Only YOU the agent causing the suffering needs to exist to prevent suffering, which will occur if you make that move to do so, and won't occur if you make the move to not.

It's you who's trying to defend the indefensible by repeatedly attempting to downplay the reality of happiness (that people who go through intense harms also cherish). I do want to minimise harms (and I don't think that it's logically necessary for one to harm someone in order to be happy), but I don't think that anything, even my own misery, can justify preventing all happiness for billions of people the sake of preventing some negative experiences for others. A "prevention" that leads to the nullification of all good simply cannot be deemed an ethical/reasonable solution.

Whatever noble intentions you might have, the ineluctable truth is that you are unnecessarily preventing joys due to your perspective. Cold-hearted and apathetic this is (since if creating harms is "using" someone, then it's also absurd to not create possible joy that one cannot ask for themselves before existing). One cannot be truly empathetic whilst also ignoring the power and reality of happiness. There is no benefit in one instance. In the other, you can create the good. Preventing suffering is certainly important, but that's also because doing so can lead to the preservation of happiness, which is also significant. As for creating valuable/disvaluable lives, if it's necessary to prevent damage, I do think that it's necessary to create happiness, though this has to take other things into consideration, such as physical limitations and long-term consequences. In reality, I do think that one needs an actual benefit/harm (which is I don't consider creation to be inherently good/bad for a person), but if one does not need an actual benefit for the prevention to be good, there is also no need for a feeling of deprivation for the formation of happiness to be intrinsically preferable. It's also only us who need to exist in order to create deep joys.

Whatever noble intentions you might have, the ineluctable truth is that you are unnecessarily preventing joys due to your perspective. Cold-hearted and apathetic this is (since if creating harms is "using" someone, then it's also absurd to not create possible joy that one cannot ask for themselves before existing). One cannot be truly empathetic whilst also ignoring the power and reality of happiness. — DA671

So here we have the basic asymmetry at play.. All the things you have been straw manning me are now being used by yourself. No "one" is being used by not being born. Someone is being used once born. it can never be the other way. Thus the asymmetry. Again, in one case- collateral damage (harm is taking place despite what one intends). In the other case- no collateral damage (there is no person to be deprived of happiness). It is all about whether one should go ahead and create collateral damage.

Yes, I see that you believe collateral damage is justified because..happiness.

Yeah, the flawed "asymmetry" often comes into play, though it doesn't win. ;) As I said before, I do not think that it makes sense to say that the lack of harm is good without also acknowledging that the absence of the positives is bad. It's tragic, but understandable, that you have chosen to ignore the obvious.

Fallacy of fallacies. No one is being treated as an end in themselves either by the lack of the bestowal of any good either, considering that one has no interests when they don't exist that are being fulfilled/respected. And I didn't straw man you, since I wasn't talking about people being "used", but an inherent good (that one cannot ask for) not being bestowed due to one's overwhelming pessimistic inclinations. A benefit that an innocent being cannot ask for is being created when one exists, and it isn't if they aren't born. Thus, the so-called asymmetry remains unreasonable. Again, in one case no joy occurs (irrespective of any intentions to prevent harm), in the other case, there is no benefit either (nobody to gain from the lack of damage). It is all about whether one can understand the simple truth that it can never be moral to prevent all happiness for the sake of preventing harms.

Yes, I can also see that you believe in an unethical view that justifies preventing all good in order to prevent some harms that one is single-mindedly focused on whilst ignoring other pertinent factors. I am sorry if I had misunderstood anything you had written, but as things stand, I don't think that you were able to make a successful case for your position here.

Oh how I love it when anti-antinatalists get in a tizzy.. Don't worry bra, your side is still going strong ;). I have way more to gain, and you have almost nothing at stake except maybe some argument you heard from a friend. Anyways...

Yeah, the unreasonable "asymmetry" often comes into play, though it doesn't win. ;) As I said before, I do jot think that it makes sense to say that the lack of harm is good without also acknowledging that the absence of the positives is bad. It's tragic, but understandable, that you have chosen to ignore the obvious. — DA671

Ah yes, the whole "Accuse the other of what I'm doing" defense. Always helpful.

Fallacy of fallacies. And I didn't straw man you, since I wasn't talking about people being "used", but an inherent good (that one cannot ask for) not being bestowed due to one's overwhelming pessimistic inclinations. A benefit that an innocent being cannot ask for is being created when one exists, and it isn't if they aren't born. Thus, the so-called asymmetry remains unreasonable. Again, in one case no joy occurs (irrespective of any intentions to prevent harm), in the other case, there is no benefit either (nobody to gain from the lack of damage). It is all about whether one can understand the simple truth that it can never be moral to prevent all happiness for the sake of preventing harms. — DA671

An "inherent good".. what the hell is that? And, here is the kicker.. "who" is losing out in the current state of affairs of no collateral damage? The ghost of no-person existing? There is no innocent being.. category error again. There is simply a state of affairs. In this case no collateral damage. The other side is there will be collateral damage. No collateral damage here means no state of affairs of a person being harmed from being deprived of anything. The flip side is a state of affairs with a person harmed. What does it matter if no "one" benefits if they aren't deprived of those benefits in the current state of affairs?

It is all about whether one can understand the simple truth that it can never be moral to prevent all happiness for the sake of preventing harms. — DA671

Why?

Yes, I can also see that you believe in an unethical view that justifies preventing all good in order to prevent some harms that one is single-minded focused on whilst ignoring other pertinent factors. — DA671

What does it matter if good did not occur in the universe? Are you on some mission? From whom, for whom? You are not doing stuff to yourself but other people and you are the messiah that MUST determine that they be put through existence, because the messiah deems it must happen? Not arrogant you say? A prophet from the internets..

Wow Raymond, Just reading through the contents of this post from page 1.
Perhaps I should have read more of your comments before commenting on your proposed theism.
Maybe you are playing the evangelical preacher card for your own entertainment.
To see what kind of responses you get. Maybe it's sophistry just for the sake of it or maybe it's all genuine deeply held conviction. I have no idea.
I have experienced it's like before, roleplay perhaps?
If you truly are a theist, which branch do you truly associate with?
No flowery or emotive rhetoric is requested, if you do wish to reply with the pertinent info, then that's ok.
You of course, don't have to reply at all and I am quite happy if you reply but choose to obfuscate.
I am just a little intrigued between your physics stance, your impressive physics knowledge and your highly emotive evangelical commentary in this thread.
I apologise if this sounds like an invasive attempt at trying to psycho-analyse you.
Feel free to tell me to .....off, if you wish. I will comply as far as this particular style of query is concerned.
As I said, I am just........intrigued

Just reading my way through this thread from the start and I just 'in general terms' wanted to declare myself as a fan of your overall positions on this topic. :strong: :grin: :up:

Was thinking of contributing to this thread but after reading through it, I can't think of any point, I would make based on the OP, that has not been covered by yourself, Athena and DA671, so nuff said.
:strong: :smile: :up:

: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! — Athena

Nahh, I think you are more scared than you used to be. That is because there were the dangers that you know, now you do not know the dangers anymore. Crime rates go up or down but the trend is downward.

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. — Athena

Well I hope for this new age, but how do we get there? I reappraisal of the classics, yeah might be... Perhaps indeed also a reevaluation of our relationship to our world. However, things look very dire. They look dire according to me because of the accelerating economic inequality between people. The working class has been dismantled and share holder capitalism triumphed and profit is of no benefit anymore to the people who created it. The result is 'immiseration', an alienated class of people who's only option is to love from day to day and enjoy what they can without thinking ahead. They will not read the classics or care for the environment through no fault of their own, but just because they are busy making a living. This will increase polarization in society because they will defend what little they have from the masses that have even less. Therefore it will have to start somewhere and the answer might well be one you do not like, more interference in the economic lives of the citizens.

Okay, I have to read that! He published a few books and I am not sure which one is the most important to my effort. I am too tired to figure it out now. — Athena

The Worker: Dominion and Form. He also wrote about his experiences in war but that is not of interest to you. I do think though he will describe and affirm exactly what you will dislike. However, that is why he needs to be read, or at least why I think you should read him. He thinks Prussian knowledge of duty is great and that we will become technological 'workers', but it will be up to us to give technology soul. It is a book way ahead of its time I think.

Just reading my way through this thread from the start and I just 'in general terms' wanted to declare myself as a fan of your overall positions on this topic. :strong: :grin: :up:
7 minutes ago — universeness

Well thank you. I think that means there is hope for the future. No matter what happens, even if we are reduced to a few tribes barely able to survive and reproduce the next generation, if we realize the connection between science and good moral judgment, and what this has to do with democracy and raising the human potential, there is hope. We will find our way.

Okay the New Age consciousness has begun. Like I am in total shock about our government discussing paying for child care, and frequently I am hearing information about poverty that is based on research. Since women have held seats of power, child welfare has been improving. Over 6 thousand years of patriarchy and in just over 50 years of women having power, we are seeing important changes. To understand how the future may be different is to understand our past and I am just too tired to think things through. I look forward to having something intelligent to say in the morning after I have recharged my batteries.

One more thing. I think duty is wonderful! This is why we should not argue. Concepts like duty can mean different things to different people. Women have been very dutiful and they did what they did because it is the right thing to do, not because of high pay.

I don't have to be concerned about fundamentally problematic views, but it's always better for others to realise that instead of indulging in projections. ;)
Nothing will be gained from this, but I suppose I'll move on. And I discovered the arguments myself, not from a friend.

Asking for introspection is indeed useful in the face of prevarication.

If damage is an inherent harm that needs to be prevented, happiness is also a good that does not deserve to be prevented. Straw man argument again, since I have already argued for a consistent case that is about creating the benefit for those who would exist. However, the reality is that there aren't any souls in some blissful antechamber who are desperate to avoid existence. It cannot be preferable for nonexistent beings, by the same token, to not exist, since that's also a category error. There's indeed a valueless state of affairs in one case. In the other, there is the invaluable benefit of happiness. No benefit here means that nobody is fulfilled from any absent harm. The flip side is a state of affairs where a person does experience goods. The lack of absent benefits doesn't matter for those who never had them in the first place, but if the positives don't matter, then the lack of damage also has no relevance for those who aren't feeling satisfaction due to its absence.

Because consistency matters, even if it's difficult to accept. It's not rational to focus on removing undesirable experiences at the cost of preventing the preferable ones.

The universe also doesn't care about any absent harm. I am sorry if my replies came off as "arrogant", yet it seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that its a trait that pervades any view that totally disregards one aspect of reality. I am interested in many things, but I am afraid that I have been impelled to disagree with the internet prophets of unreasonable pessimism ;)

I don't have to be concerned about fundamentally problematic views, but it's always better for others to realise that as well instead of indulging in projection. ;) — DA671

What does that even mean?

Nothing will be gained from this, but I suppose I'll move on. And I looked up the arguments myself, not from a friend. — DA671

But why? From your perspective, who gives a hooey what fringe antinatalists, that passively advocate not procreating, say? I mean I get it if it's just to bide the time, but what an odd project to be against, of all things. I get why people who care about antinatalism care and post. They actually have a passion for it. It is a minority view. But what I don't get is the ardent anti-antinatalists who have no real stake in the game or passion for the subject in any way other than getting mad arguing about it. It's just odd to me. It makes sense on this forum I guess for pure rhetorical football, but again, an odd one to play ball with in the first place. Aren't there some "hard questions of consciousness", "utilitarian vs. deontology" and "is philosophy just language games?" threads that would matter more? Hell, even just a "meaning of life" thread has more cache. Also, its really hard (annoying) to follow along with your answers when you don't actually quote what you are referring to. I have to keep scrolling back to what I said earlier.

If damage is an inherent harm that needs to be prevented, happiness is also a good that does not deserve to be prevented. — DA671

So I am going to ignore this because we discussed about collateral damage and states of affairs. That's why I started slowly and tried to move forward. You haven't gotten passed the understanding, so we can't keep arguing until you recognize it.

Straw man argument again, since I have already argued for a consistent case that is about creating the benefit for those who would exist. — DA671

But you are arguing your own argument and not mine, so no.

However, the reality is that there aren't any souls in some blissful antechamber who are desperate to avoid existence. — DA671

Please feck off if you are going to keep harping this argument. That is NOT the collateral damage argument I made. Can you actually articulate my argument or are you going to keep repeating yours? It's now getting to the point of rude how you keep doing the same error.

It cannot be preferable for nonexistent beings, by the same token, to not exist, since that's also a category error. — DA671

NOW I'M SPEAKING IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GETTING IT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT NONEXISTENT BEINGS. IT IS ABOUT THE PERSON MAKING A DECISION TO CHANGE THE STATE OF AFFAIRS FROM NO COLLATERAL DAMAGE EXISTING TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE EXISTING.

No benefit here means that nobody is fulfilled from any absent harm. — DA671

No one NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED!! That's not the argument.

The flip side is a state of affairs where a person does experience goods. The lack of absent benefits doesn't matter for those who never had them in the first place, but if the positives don't matter, then the lack of damage also has no relevance for those who aren't feeling satisfaction due to its absence. — DA671

Wow, I am not sure if this is purposeful obfuscation now, to purposely be a repetitive jack in the box. It is not about the nonexisting nothing. It is about the fact that no collateral damage was created vs. creating collateral damage. The argument does not hinge (despite your repetitive assertions) on the idea of no one benefiting from it. Rather, do you create collateral damage or not create collateral damage for someone else? PERIOD.

Because consistency matters, even if it's difficult to accept. It's not rational to focus on removing undesirable experiences at the cost of preventing the preferable ones. — DA671

It's not rational.. every time I hear that, I tune out. That can mean anything and everythign.. Usually it just means.. "You don't agree with my view.. so you're not rational.. wah wah". Making happiness ex nihilo just does not have the same ethical obligation of creating unnecessary suffering, non-trivial, lifetime's worth, inescapable on someone else's behalf.

The universe also doesn't care about any absent harm. — DA671

It's not the universe.. it's the people who can make a decision to create the collateral damage. And again. And again. And again..

I am sorry if my replies came off as "arrogant", yet it seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that its a trait that pervades any view that totally disregards one aspect of reality. I am interested in many things, but I am afraid that I have been impelled to disagree with the internet prophets of unreasonable pessimism ;) — DA671

Yeah but I am not changing someone else's state of existence by not having any body... That is not the case when you procreate.. Like death, it is changing an existential state of affairs (that ends up being someone else's problem). You see, me not procreating right now does no harm to no actual person. It is the default state- that of NOT creating collateral damage where there was none to begin with. Not so with procreation.

Self-evident things don't solicit excessive explanations. There's no need to "get in a tizzy" over trivial matters.

I can't quote because my bizarre and antiquated device refuses to do anything :p Still, I apologise for the inconvenience.
There are indeed many issues worth discussing, and I found this one to be interesting for now, so there isn't much of a mystery to it. Nevertheless, I suppose it's still fruitful to point out that believing in the prevention of all good is not a logical position to hold, in my view.

I have already recognised it. It's you who failed to move past "damage", which is also why one reaches erroneous conclusions such as the prevention of joys being acceptable.

But I was indeed arguing against your argument that mischaracterised my view by unnecessarily referencing to people "losing" out, so no.

Thank you for your kind words, my friend. You're the one who keeps repeating the term "collateral damage" ad nauseam whilst continuing to ignore the flaws in your own position. I also hadn't talked about "ghosts of nonexistent persons" that needed happiness (even though I personally do believe that harms/benefits in terms of leaving someone better or worse off does require an actual degradation/fulfillment, but that's not pertinent here). The only simple and consistent point was: if it's bad to create the damage/negatives, it's also good to create benefits. This isn't a particularly complex point.

I think I "got it" much sooner than you realise; it's you who's refusing to see the essential irrationality and double standards of your position. It's definitely could be about existing people, in which case the relevant factor would be the happiness they would experience once they exist, not nonexistent ghosts feeling deprived.

That is the argument. If one needs to be "deprived" for the lack of happiness to be bad, I don't think it's sensible to deny that there should be a satisfied state of affairs that would prevail from absenct harms, which is clearly not the case. Once again, you simply don't want to look beyond your single-minded viewpoint.

Sometimes our biases can lead to unnecessary "obfuscations" where none exist. To your statement about there being no damage from absent happiness, I had pointed out that if the lack of damage is good even though it doesn't benefit an actual person, there is also no need for there being a conscious feeling of harm for the creation of joys to be ethical. Yet again, you didn't seem to understand, which is, I must confess, regrettable.

The truth can hurt, but it's sometimes necessary. Arbitrarily deciding that the prevention of harms matters above everything else on the basis of an unjustifiable asymmetry that employs double standards is simply not a truly reasonable view to hold. If creating damage "ex nihilo" is bad even though it doesn't worsen an actual state of affairs, it can be quite good to create an ineffably meaningful life that would have resilience that enables them to cherish deeply potent and significant experiences of love, beauty, excitement, and tranquility. Bestowing precious goods to someone incapable of asking for it themselves can be considered praiseworthy in innumerable ways. This, however, does not mean that the harms do not matter, which is why we need to limit mindless procreation and also implement ideas such as a liberal RTD to ensure that people don't have to endure a truly valueless existence.

"What does it matter if good does not occur jn the universe?" could be interpreted in multiple ways. I am not saying that everybody needs to create beings. However, for those who do value things such as having a close bond with a family member and creating a new source of and for joys, the preservation of the positives can definitely be a extremely meaningful. It's about damage, and it's also about the decision to create as much real good as possible.

If one believes that one is doing something ethical by preventing potential damage, I don't think that one can resist the inevitable truth that they are also preventing all good, which is problematic, to say the least. However, I suppose one could also harm their own well-being by believing pessimistic positions that aren't justifiable. No, I am not going to let this sort of double standard slide. The "default" state either is valueless (neutral), in which case it would be worse to create harms, but better to create happiness. However, if the lack of harms is "good", then the lack of all happiness is indeed bad. You not creating a good might be mitigated by factors such as the likelihood of the person having a good life and practical limitations, but I don't think that not forming any positive lives is acceptable (assuming that it's good for the negatives ones to not exist). The default state leads to no benefit, but this is clearly not the case with procreation.

Self-evident things don't solicit excessive explanations. There's no need to "get in a tizzy" over trivial matters. — DA671

This still means nothing.. Self-evident things are rarely self-evident and you are on a philosophy forum, so not quite playing to the crowd by saying "Right because it's self-evident.. no debate".

The only simple and consistent point was: if it's bad to create the damage/negatives, it's also good to create benefits. This isn't a particularly complex point. — DA671

Little sleight of hand there.. Not just damage, but collateral damage. This entails the benefits.. Is it good to create benefits when you are causing suffering as well, when it is: unnecessary, inescapable, non-trivial, and non-temporary?

That is the argument. If one needs to be "deprived" for the lack of happiness to be bad, I don't think it's sensible to deny that there should be a satisfied state of affairs that would prevail from absenct harms, which is clearly not the case. Once again, you simply don't want to look beyond your single-minded viewpoint. — DA671

Well you keep repeating it from the POV of the non-existing person. Why do you do this? It's simply a person making the decision... Create collateral damage (change the current state that will be someone else's problem to deal with).. or don't create collateral damage (don't change the state and no one will have a problem to deal with or be deprived of not having happiness). You cannot change this POV to the POV that you keep doing, and then make the sleight of hand and then again say you understand the argument.

It was extremely difficult for me to refute "intellectual" arguments such as "get into a tizzy" or "messiah deems it must happen". ;) I don't care about the crowds, because universal AN still remains unethical even if many more people supported it.

An apropos description of your views. Much of the so-called "asymmetry" also seems like smoke and mirrors to me. The truth is that you don't wish to venture past your narrow framework, which is why you keep dismissing everything else as being "not the argument". Although there are those who do harm others, there are many who are happy and also help others. The harms do exist alongside the positives, but this doesn't mean that the good directly requires the negatives to exist. Preventing the damage cannot come at the cost of preventing all the benefit. Complex situations are rarely fixed by one-sided "solutions". I don't think the harms are good; I merely disagree with the assertion that preventing necessary (assuming that averting harm is also necessary), precious, significant, and evanescent yet eternally valuable positives is an acceptable idea.

I haven't done anything except for pointing out the inherent flaw with idea that there needs to be a deprivation for the creation of a positive life to be necessary, but it's somehow logical to suggest that the lack of harm is good sans an actual benefit, because the truth is it simply doesn't seem to be the case. There's no need to drag this on infinitely, because it's also quite easy to understand that one resolves to create a benefit in one case that one could consider akin to a gift they couldn't solicit themselves. In one instance, the state of affairs changes to one having good, and in the other, there is no value. Once again, the lack of a "POV" before existing is precisely why I don't think that existence can be inherently better/worse for a person. But even if it is and all that matters is the perspective and experiences of the actual person, the logical position seems to be to understand that the creation of a benefit matters just lile the prevention of damage. You cannot apply double standards and then accuse others of making a "sleight of hand" when being questioned for a lack of consistency, for doing so is probably a much accurate representation of a sleight of hand.

A few standard questions for the misanthropic/antinatalist pessimist.

If you could press a button now, and all human life would cease to exist, without causing any suffering to anyone, including you. Instant removal from the Universe. Would you press?

If we go back to the time of the dinosaurs and consider the longevity of time they had on the Earth, compared to humans. Was there any suffering during those times, when there were no humans around?

Is it only human suffering you are concerned about?

Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer.

If you truly are a theist, which branch do you truly associate with — universeness

And thou, Scotsman, should prepare too, like every mortal soul, for the justified global cleansing showing its first signs already in introductory foreplay. If we don't kneel and submit to His Undubitable Supreme reigning, His Holy Wisdom, and His Pristine Ejaculate from His Graphene Erect, eternal darkness and gloomy doom will be all we are left with. Only a full and true commitment to the Holy Ejaculate will save the sinful from the purifyied beating of the Stiff Erect. His merciful Immaculate Erect will whip and wipe, and only bestow and fertilize the blissful follower and true repenter. The Wondrous Being, praise his name threefold, Hurray Hurray Hurray, hurry Hurray! From the Incendiary Erect, that divine Cynosure of Truthful heavenly Justice, the Ivory Ejaculate will restore order in paradise and blow the ephemeral determined and swiftly to damned oblivion. Therefore, brothers and sisters, let's hold hands and humbly request the Almighty to at least show his unsurpassed empathy in dealing with the renegade pagan. May Science rule suppreme!

Did you think I prayed to the gods? No. It was meant to show that the story that science tells us has taken the place of the God story. Science and technology joined hands with the state as God did once. Seems the aim is to control nature at all levels. Science is omnipotent, omnipresent. Omnibenevolent? Certainly not.

I'm no member of any fucking church. Gods exist. You may disagree, of course. The deeper you think about nature, the more you realize that there is no scientific answer to the question where it all came from. I think I know, but where then does the stuff at the base came from?

I forgot a question:

Do you believe a human being can learn from suffering and improve their life due to the experience of suffering?