a narrow understanding of what suffering is — Possibility

:up: Leprosy has long been considered a divine punishment and people seem to be certain that it's an illness in need of a cure. Congenital Insensitivty to Pain (CIP) is also classified as a malady. However, I'm sure there's a comic out there that lists CIP as a superpower, to be used by the so-afflicted for good.

nicotine — Possibility

Nictoine, to my knowledge, is a neurochemical with effects on our in-built reward system and hence the physical dependence that characterizes addiction to nicotine.

Leprosy has long been considered a divine punishment and people seem to be certain that it's an illness in need of a cure. Congenital Insensitivty to Pain (CIP) is also classified as a malady. However, I'm sure there's a comic out there that lists CIP as a superpower, to be used by the so-afflicted for good. — Agent Smith

I read a YA novel a few years back called ‘Carve the Mark’ by Veronica Roth, which explores the notion of suffering in a fantasy world where each character has a ‘currentgift’ - a unique aspect of their character, or ‘superpower’, if you will. I’ll drop in here some notes I’d made at the time:

Fear, pain, humiliation and loss feature heavily in this book. What is most apparent is that none of the characters are free from any of it. Many will go to great lengths to avoid these experiences, to pretend they can be free of them, that they should be free of them, but it's impossible, even in this fictional solar system.
Vas, a man whose currentgift is to feel no pain, lives an empty life - he is wielded as a weapon, a tool, and finds no other purpose in life than that. Without an experience of pain, he has no way to appreciate the joys in life. He has become an object, empty of life. Vas' juxtaposition with Cyra, who is constantly in pain and must learn to live with it, also accentuates the life she embodies - she experiences so much more, and can find beauty and joy where others cannot (or will not). Because Cyra is forced to accept pain as a consistent part of life, because it is impossible for her to avoid, she is able to live more fully than others.
To the rest of us, who spend our lives trying to avoid or eradicate pain, a life like Cyra's would seem pointless. To see it as her gift is almost impossible. That is how we feel when we hear the phrase 'life is pain' - because how can a life of pain be a gift? But what Cyra realises is that her gift is her ability to absorb pain, to cope with it. Her gift is the courage to live with pain, to love, show compassion, experience life, even, perhaps, to ultimately forgive and bring peace - not in eliminating, in spite of or even despite the pain she feels and cannot avoid, but because of it. —

The rise in depression, anxiety and even ASD in our youth can be seen as an indication of neural evolution - towards a more variable system of mind or conceptual configuration. From a medical perspective, these are ‘disorders’, but I think there might be method in the madness, as it were.

Nictoine, to my knowledge, is a neurochemical with effects on our in-built reward system and hence the physical dependence that characterizes addiction to nicotine. — Agent Smith

Hmm - an analogy for transhumanism....? Just a thought...

:up:

Perhaps we shouldn't be aiming for the abolishment of pain/suffering. Instead, let's try to reduce their intensity, their unpleasantness, their foolifying power - like how syringe needles are small, sharp and bevelled to make them less painful, not painless.

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.

One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.)
— Antinatalist

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken. — Possibility

I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer.
But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to.

Perhaps we shouldn't be aiming for the abolishment of pain/suffering. Instead, let's try to reduce their intensity, their unpleasantness, their foolifying power - like how syringe needles are small, sharp and bevelled to make them less painful, not painless. — Agent Smith

:up:

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.
— Possibility

I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer. — Antinatalist

What is that ‘being’ who does not exist, if they do not exist? If they do not suffer, what is their significance for you? How are they ‘real’ enough for you to talk about in this way?

But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to. — Antinatalist

I recognise that procreation is to deliberately create a life that isn’t necessary. I do think the motivation behind that decision is usually and to a large extent self-serving, and based on an ignorant notion that it gives their own existence ‘purpose’ to determine the course of someone else’s life when they are most vulnerable, with little regard for the purpose of that life in itself. So I’m with you there. It’s not ‘purpose’ they’re drawn to, but power, and a vicarious sense of potential/value. Most people fail so dismally at parenting because the reality doesn’t reach their expectations in this sense. To be a parent is to gradually relinquish any control you thought you had over to someone else, and to watch your best efforts take on a life of their own, rendering you effectively redundant. Once this realisation kicks in, most will either fight to dominate, or give up early and abandon the child to school and society.

But this is ignorance, not immorality. We’re still pushing this ancient cultural myth that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate collectively, and to strive for independence, autonomy and influence individually - it’s no wonder we’re so disappointed with life! We’ve been shooting ourselves in the foot all this time.

You can’t just say ‘don’t do it’, though. And it certainly doesn’t help to say ‘don’t exist’. I think there is an alternative to procreation in recognising the variability of our own potential, and focusing on that, instead of creating a new set of limitations in being. It starts with dismantling this cultural myth.

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.
— Possibility

I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer.

— Antinatalist

What is that ‘being’ who does not exist, if they do not exist? If they do not suffer, what is their significance for you? How are they ‘real’ enough for you to talk about in this way? — Possibility

Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple.

But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to.
— Antinatalist

I recognise that procreation is to deliberately create a life that isn’t necessary. I do think the motivation behind that decision is usually and to a large extent self-serving, and based on an ignorant notion that it gives their own existence ‘purpose’ to determine the course of someone else’s life when they are most vulnerable, with little regard for the purpose of that life in itself. So I’m with you there. It’s not ‘purpose’ they’re drawn to, but power, and a vicarious sense of potential/value. Most people fail so dismally at parenting because the reality doesn’t reach their expectations in this sense. To be a parent is to gradually relinquish any control you thought you had over to someone else, and to watch your best efforts take on a life of their own, rendering you effectively redundant. Once this realisation kicks in, most will either fight to dominate, or give up early and abandon the child to school and society.

But this is ignorance, not immorality. We’re still pushing this ancient cultural myth that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate collectively, and to strive for independence, autonomy and influence individually - it’s no wonder we’re so disappointed with life! We’ve been shooting ourselves in the foot all this time.

You can’t just say ‘don’t do it’, though. And it certainly doesn’t help to say ‘don’t exist’. I think there is an alternative to procreation in recognising the variability of our own potential, and focusing on that, instead of creating a new set of limitations in being. It starts with dismantling this cultural myth. — Possibility

So, are you against procreation?

@Possibility, stop trying to be semantically pedantic. You know what he means. I’ll phrase it this way:
By procreating the parent is creating collateral damage. Antinatalists don’t want to create unnecessary collateral damage for other people. This not procreating does not create this collateral damage.

Also making a decision as profound as the comply or die agenda for someone else is a political move that violates or disrespect to the dignity of the person who will this have to follow these dictates as a result.

↪Antinatalist @Possibility, stop trying to be semantically pedantic. — schopenhauer1

Allright, I try not to be.

You know what he means. I’ll phrase it this way:
By procreating the parent is creating collateral damage. Antinatalists don’t want to create unnecessary collateral damage for other people. This not procreating does not create this collateral damage.. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Also making a decision as profound as the comply or die agenda for someone else is a political move that violates or disrespect to the dignity of the person who will this have to follow these dictates as a result. — schopenhauer1

I have to agree.

Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple. — Antinatalist

What is bad or not bad? You seem to be talking about your subjective experience as if it’s some objective moral position.

I appreciate you parsing your position in this way, because this aspect of antinatalism is the part I’m having trouble with. I don’t think the event of somebody suffering is necessarily ‘bad’ - and I’ve discussed this in more detail here with Agent Smith.

So, are you against procreation? — Antinatalist

I do support antinatalism as a practical, socially and environmentally conscious choice - but I’m not going to take a moral stand against procreation, for two reasons. Firstly, I’m a parent myself, so I can relate to both the ignorance that leads to it, and the understanding that comes from the experience. I don’t regret my choice, and I know that without the experience, I would not have understood how naive I was. But I’ve been careful to ensure that my children are aware of better alternatives. We need a cultural paradigm shift away from the myth of ‘human purpose’ and towards creative collaboration, rather than moral judgement with an impossible alternative. Read my responses to Agent Smith for more details on this.

Secondly, I’m not against life, being or suffering, while it appears that most antinatalists are. So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this.

Allright, I try not to be. — Antinatalist

Don’t worry - he was referring to me, there.

So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this. — Possibility

The aim is not non being but not creating situations of unnecessary suffering and comply or die burdens onto another. Non being would be a result. Your steamrolling Collaboration scheme is misguided as much as it is Messianic. That is to say, you feel new people must enter into the (political) scheme such that they interact with the world, probably (definitely) suffer, and learn to overcome suffering. That would be misguided to burden others because you have a notion about people needing to join a steamrolling Collaboration scheme.

Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple.
— Antinatalist
— Possibility

What is bad or not bad? You seem to be talking about your subjective experience as if it’s some objective moral position.

I appreciate you parsing your position in this way, because this aspect of antinatalism is the part I’m having trouble with. I don’t think the event of somebody suffering is necessarily ‘bad’ - and I’ve discussed this in more detail here with Agent Smith. — Possibility

Some things that are considered bad things at first glance are often considered later otherwise, when the situation is different and we/me/somebody can estimate that so called bad thing for instrumentally good thing. That bad thing prevented some more bad thing to happen or was essential for something good to happen (some might say what this got to do with antinatalism?).
But all those things belongs to life, and are only valuable inside this life, are they instrumentally good things or maybe something, which someone seems a purpose of life. (Of course somebody could say life has a ultimate value over non-life. That is a question of an another topic).

The complexity of this bad/not bad -issue is so huge, that it would be a quite big sidestep, so I try to crystallize for you my point of view of that bad I referred for:

When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good.


So, are you against procreation?
— Antinatalist

I do support antinatalism as a practical, socially and environmentally conscious choice - but I’m not going to take a moral stand against procreation, for two reasons. Firstly, I’m a parent myself, so I can relate to both the ignorance that leads to it, and the understanding that comes from the experience. I don’t regret my choice, and I know that without the experience, I would not have understood how naive I was. But I’ve been careful to ensure that my children are aware of better alternatives. We need a cultural paradigm shift away from the myth of ‘human purpose’ and towards creative collaboration, rather than moral judgement with an impossible alternative. Read my responses to Agent Smith for more details on this.

Secondly, I’m not against life, being or suffering, while it appears that most antinatalists are. So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this. — Possibility

Do you think that antinatalists would be somehow more convincing if they will make more suicides?

Allright, I try not to be.
— Antinatalist

Don’t worry - he was referring to me, there. — Possibility

Okay, I didn´t get it at first.

Do you think that antinatalists would be somehow more convincing if they will make more suicides? — Antinatalist

No - I think antinatalists would be more convincing if they recognised that it is their valuing life’s potentiality in itself that causes them to despair at such limited actualisation.

When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good. — Antinatalist

This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation.

So when these do occur, it doesn’t help to label the perpetrators ‘inhuman’ and exclude their being from the value of ‘human’ potential. Nor does it help to focus only on the suffering caused, and refuse to understand the structures and patterns of reduced perceptions of potential that would lead to it. It is ignorance, isolation and exclusion that lead to suffering, and we counteract and prevent suffering with increased awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s my view.

Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential.

When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good.
— Antinatalist
— Possibility

This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation. — Possibility

I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear.

So when these do occur, it doesn’t help to label the perpetrators ‘inhuman’ and exclude their being from the value of ‘human’ potential. Nor does it help to focus only on the suffering caused, and refuse to understand the structures and patterns of reduced perceptions of potential that would lead to it. It is ignorance, isolation and exclusion that lead to suffering, and we counteract and prevent suffering with increased awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s my view. — Possibility

I don't want to be rude, but for me that sounds naive. But of course it is a good thing to try to reduce suffering (but not by any so called utilitarian way, though).

I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear. — Antinatalist

As I’ve said, I think it may get worse before it gets better, but I do think there will be a time in the future of humanity with far less violence than we have now, let alone have had in the past. I mentioned in my discussion with Agent Smith that I don’t imagine a total elimination of what we call ‘suffering’. But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives.

I don't want to be rude, but for me that sounds naive. But of course it is a good thing to try to reduce suffering (but not by any so called utilitarian way, though). — Antinatalist

I don’t think it’s rude - it’s a valid perspective. It sounds that way for two main reasons. Firstly, stated in this way, it seems too simple to be effective. But I never said it would be easy. It’s probably one of the hardest things to do to admit the role our own ignorance plays in perpetuating suffering, and seek to remedy it. Where do you even start? Secondly, the cultural myth or ‘agenda’ keeps telling us that our survival is important - but you and I both know that no-one’s life is more important than reducing suffering across the board. This is the real test of antinatalism - what usually keeps us from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration is this fear for our own survival and sense of dominance. If we’re going to rebel against the ‘agenda’, then we need to be prepared to act against our own best interests for the sake of reducing suffering. I’m not suggesting we commit suicide - that’s a waste of this potential we’ve developed so far - but to put the rebellion before our own survival, get creative and make full use of our temporary and otherwise useless BEING to effect an ongoing reduction in suffering, long after our life ends.

So, given the prevailing antinatalist view that simply BEING currently increases suffering, what is it that prevents us from increasing awareness of our potential to BE different, in a way that potentially reduces suffering?

No - I think antinatalists would be more convincing if they recognised that it is their valuing life’s potentiality in itself that causes them to despair at such limited actualisation. — Possibility

Gaslighting at its finest. So you think that fear of death is equivalent to THUS thinking it is okay to start life? Oh please try to justify that one.. Fear of death, your justification for life must be worth starting :lol:.Doesn't logically entail.

Also, this is COMPLETELY buying into the comply or die scenario.. You are LITERALLY saying, "If you don't like the agenda, then go kill yourself!". And then when we don't you say, "HA! SEE Life must be good!" Hogwash.

This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation. — Possibility

Right, so keep experimenting with more people till we "get it right" :roll:. But we won't get it right because behind all our actions is the "comply or die" gun to our heads. Keep surviving, and overcoming dissatisfaction.. Because STEAMROLLER COLLABORATION SCHEME THAT POSSIBILITY WANTS TO SEE CARRIED OUT!!!

Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential. — Possibility

Yes, indeed it is. Awareness of YOUR potential maybe, but not forcing other people's. I mean you fit into the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model.. What you forget to include in your little scheme is that we are already put into a scheme where we have to collaborate. This is much of my point. You focus on the collaboration to meet goals (like a manager at a business, but for any aspect of life) and not the forced aspect of this collaboration.

But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives. — Possibility

You don't give a concrete example of what "transcend" means.. It's all bullshit hope-vision-imagery with no real "there" there. The only thing I can imagine in your imagined utopia is "collaboration" schemes of people somehow magically "conforming" to the group. This is to take away people's autonomy. If I do work and I think ALL work is meaningless, you're just going to give me some "collaboration" rhetoric.. And try to convince me that I am being a "rogue individual".. Again by focusing so much on collaboration you miss the "forced" aspect of this collaboration. We ALL know that we need to collaborate.. But a lot of times, IT JUST SUCKS!!!

So, given the prevailing antinatalist view that simply BEING currently increases suffering, what is it that prevents us from increasing awareness of our potential to BE different, in a way that potentially reduces suffering? — Possibility

I've given my examples besides the obvious of not procreating. In all aspects of being, there is a comply aspect to it.. So the question itself is always IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT. But you keep missing my point and trying to jump over it to simply "collaborate" without acknowledging background radiation (because we were forced into this situation and can't get out without overcoming fear of death). Unless you acknowledge that blindspot, your philosophy can't get beyond antinatalism. You have not integrated it.

So, given the prevailing antinatalist view that simply BEING currently increases suffering, what is it that prevents us from increasing awareness of our potential to BE different, in a way that potentially reduces suffering? — Possibility

The conviction that merely reducing suffering is not enough.

The conviction that merely reducing suffering is not enough. — baker

She's managing it like an HR person would :D, replete with slogans of "collaboration". You are a individualistic rogue if you think the whole scheme of comply or dying sucks. I gave the example of Willy Wonka's "lovingly" forced game and through analogy what is wrong with the scheme of life in general.

@schopenhauer1

How much misery can a person take ...

How much misery can a person take ... — baker

Can you elaborate? Or just riffing on the HR thing?

I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear.
— Antinatalist

As I’ve said, I think it may get worse before it gets better, but I do think there will be a time in the future of humanity with far less violence than we have now, let alone have had in the past. I mentioned in my discussion with Agent Smith that I don’t imagine a total elimination of what we call ‘suffering’. But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives. — Possibility

Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all.
Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.

@schopenhauer1

I actually envy the antinatalists. They seem like really tough folks, or relatively well off socioeconomically, or both.

I'm down with a back injury. I haven't properly slept in days because of the pain. In a state like this, to think how meaningless existence is requires more stamina than I have.

Gaslighting at its finest. So you think that fear of death is equivalent to THUS thinking it is okay to start life? Oh please try to justify that one.. Fear of death, your justification for life must be worth starting :lol:.Doesn't logically entail.

Also, this is COMPLETELY buying into the comply or die scenario.. You are LITERALLY saying, "If you don't like the agenda, then go kill yourself!". And then when we don't you say, "HA! SEE Life must be good!" Hogwash. — schopenhauer1

None of this is an accurate interpretation of my position. I am NOT arguing that it is okay to start life, and I have REPEATEDLY pointed this out to you, yet you keep throwing in this strawman. I have also NEVER suggested that anyone kill themselves, only that they recognise suicide as a potential, and have honest answers for why they won’t go there. Part of this process is to get over our fear of death - which is just buying into the agenda of survive, dominate and procreate. But you can’t see that. It’s like you cannot fathom an antinatalist who perceives the potential of life.

Right, so keep experimenting with more people till we "get it right" :roll:. But we won't get it right because behind all our actions is the "comply or die" gun to our heads. Keep surviving, and overcoming dissatisfaction.. Because STEAMROLLER COLLABORATION SCHEME THAT POSSIBILITY WANTS TO SEE CARRIED OUT!!! — schopenhauer1

Again, NOT arguing for procreation...

Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential.
— Possibility

Yes, indeed it is. Awareness of YOUR potential maybe, but not forcing other people's. I mean you fit into the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model.. What you forget to include in your little scheme is that we are already put into a scheme where we have to collaborate. This is much of my point. You focus on the collaboration to meet goals (like a manager at a business, but for any aspect of life) and not the forced aspect of this collaboration. — schopenhauer1

Because I disagree that it’s forced. I’ve already explained this, and you’ve just demonstrated your ignorance of the anything but ‘collaboration’, as if that’s all I’ve said...

You don't give a concrete example of what "transcend" means.. It's all bullshit hope-vision-imagery with no real "there" there. The only thing I can imagine in your imagined utopia is "collaboration" schemes of people somehow magically "conforming" to the group. This is to take away people's autonomy. If I do work and I think ALL work is meaningless, you're just going to give me some "collaboration" rhetoric.. And try to convince me that I am being a "rogue individual".. Again by focusing so much on collaboration you miss the "forced" aspect of this collaboration. We ALL know that we need to collaborate.. But a lot of times, IT JUST SUCKS!!! — schopenhauer1

You’re not even reading what I’ve written, just making shit up to argue against, and claiming that’s what I’d say...

I've given my examples besides the obvious of not procreating. In all aspects of being, there is a comply aspect to it.. So the question itself is always IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT. But you keep missing my point and trying to jump over it to simply "collaborate" without acknowledging background radiation (because we were forced into this situation and can't get out without overcoming fear of death). Unless you acknowledge that blindspot, your philosophy can't get beyond antinatalism. You have not integrated it. — schopenhauer1

Part of increasing awareness is acknowledging the sense that we were forced into this situation, but that we have the potential to ‘get out’ in a variety of ways. We don’t have to comply, but everyone dies eventually. Overcoming the fear of death is not as impossible as you might think. But you won’t achieve it by a passive, verbal rebellion against all aspects of being. Neither will you reduce suffering much this way. If this is your antinatalism, then count me out.

Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all. — Antinatalist

But there IS life, and it’s ours to do with what we will, regardless of what anyone says. If you want to waste it on griping, like Schop1, that’s your choice, as it is his. I’m only suggesting an alternative that I think fits with what you want to achieve: reduced suffering.

Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening. — Antinatalist

No argument with you there.

Part of this process is to get over our fear of death - which is just buying into the agenda of survive, dominate and procreate. But you can’t see that. It’s like you cannot fathom an antinatalist who perceives the potential of life. — Possibility

"Potential of life" doesn't mean anything in the context of "fear of death". However, if you mean the "experiences of life that one may benefit from", I do not deny people can get benefit out of experiences. That doesn't mean THUS life... which supposedly you agree with.

Because I disagree that it’s forced. I’ve already explained this, and you’ve just demonstrated your ignorance of the anything but ‘collaboration’, as if that’s all I’ve said... — Possibility

How do you disagree that it's forced? In fact, you just agreed with Antinatalist here:

Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.
— Antinatalist

No argument with you there. — Possibility

And my point is indeed that you can't go along and start praising the collaboration "reduction suffering scheme" without recognizing the forced aspect of its very existence. So no, I won't let you get away with moving forward with the new age talk until you recognize this.

You’re not even reading what I’ve written, just making shit up to argue against, and claiming that’s what I’d say... — Possibility

I can't decipher your neologisms, but the gist seems about right, whether you recognize it here or not. The collaboration awareness, whatever game to reduce suffering that doesn't recognized the forced nature of this scheme. You could make up any scheme you want.. Aristotle's virtue, Kant's CI, Mill's utilitarianism, Maslow's self-actualizing, communitarianism, objectivism, whatever political agenda/scheme you want. All forced. And THAT is where we must start in our ethics. No moving forward until that is properly put into the equation and context. That we are living out someone else's forced agenda, and the implications of this on everything, including reducing suffering.

Part of increasing awareness is acknowledging the sense that we were forced into this situation, but that we have the potential to ‘get out’ in a variety of ways. — Possibility

"Getting out" is a conceit.. Heaven, utopia, fan fiction.. whatever.

We don’t have to comply, but everyone dies eventually. Overcoming the fear of death is not as impossible as you might think. But you won’t achieve it by a passive, verbal rebellion against all aspects of being. Neither will you reduce suffering much this way. If this is your antinatalism, then count me out. — Possibility

This coming from someone who has no concrete examples of anything other than "collaboration and awareness". You want to manage like a business your way out.. The most middling of middle class answers to suffering. Suffering doesn't go away because we work as a "team" to get goals done. The fact that we have to work on anything, is the very point I'm pointing to!!

Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all.
— Antinatalist

But there IS life, and it’s ours to do with what we will, regardless of what anyone says. If you want to waste it on griping, like Schop1, that’s your choice, as it is his. I’m only suggesting an alternative that I think fits with what you want to achieve: reduced suffering. — Possibility

I believe that Schopenhauer1 has something to say about this "waste it on griping". But I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it.

I believe that Schopenhauer1 has something to say about this "waste it on griping". But I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it. — Antinatalist

@Possibility

I mean, the griping can be akin I guess to the "connection" and "awareness". It is collective recognition of the forced agenda, and being compassionate about the shared situation we all find ourselves in (connection). It is trying to not burden too much other people if at all possible, and doing things to alleviate other's burdens.. So there are ideas of reducing suffering, but in this context of the very fact of the burdens in the first place. It is the recognition that we are on a constantly leaking ship that needs to be fixed.. and yes, helping fix the holes, but WITH THE RECOGNITION that it is indeed a never-ending leaking ship that we are all forced onto, that others thought fit to bring more passengers onto to keep fixing the holes, and now burdening them with something to overcome. And with the recognition that this ship has a "maintenance routine" that no one asked for, and cannot accord to any individual's idea of how to run it. The ship (life) has a "situatedness" of physical/social reality that no passenger can alter, but must (even if unintentionally) contribute to. Only within that context is it getting at what is going on.

Updated last post a bit.