The answer is to get better at protecting the innocent despite white noise protestations — universeness
Just like any other case where if you know it will harm, and it is unnecessary to do so, you wouldn't do it. — schopenhauer1
Based on what evidence? The technologies created by scientists are open to abuse by the nefarious and by self-interest or just incompetent decisions made by those in power. — universeness
Again, keep to the text:
— baker
Again, try to improve your clarity.
The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life.
— baker
Do you consider such people a large majority of the global population?
We live in very imbalanced rich/poor conditions. It is harsh to judge the aspiration level of any individual who has had poverty imposed upon them since birth and very limited or no opportunity to escape it.
I assume you are not female.
No woman I know has ever raised any concern about such.
I also might add, being overly paternalistic is also a factor to consider. To think that because you think this life we have in this universe is somehow a good one, that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. — schopenhauer1
that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. You are making a decision on someone else's behalf that THESE conditions of life are perfectly fine for others to have to endure. — schopenhauer1
Not at all. Already the "regular" use of scientific achievements is what causes pollution. Plastic waste is plastic waste, regardless whether produced by an honest, hardworking man or by a glutton — baker
Look up a textbook for learning English, under the chapter "Giving short replies". — baker
Yes. Look up the DSM; "a religious problem" and other existential issues are actually listed as signs of mental illness — baker
Having relatively low aspirations in life has nothing directly to do with poverty. There is plenty of very rich, very educated people who nevertheless have relatively low aspirations in life. Their aim is the pursuit of sensual pleasures in their various forms, and that's it — baker
I assume you are not female.
Why do you assume that? — baker
Because they know that for a woman, it is best to be a fool, a beautiful little fool. — baker
Misogyny at its finest. — baker
Just to give a more direct answer to your laboriously hyped question. NO, I don't think innocent people deserve harm — universeness
Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe? — universeness
'Deserve,' is a judgment call, a human judgment call that probably has no relevance outside of humans and lifeforms like them. — universeness
It is just as arrogant to suggest this life we have in this universe is somehow a bad one and we should prevent anyone living it. — universeness
But you are an insignificant force and cannot stop the questions. Learn from any suffering that comes your way, do your best to prevent or alleviate the suffering of others and become part of the solution instead of what you are now, part of the problem — universeness
We are a product of the natural process of evolution and natural selection and you are trying to anthropomorphise morality into that process. — universeness
. At the moment we cant say much more than, were here because were here because were here because were here. — universeness
Stop crying about the journey. You dont want everything to be just perfect for you as you would never experience achievement or have any purpose. — universeness
Enjoy the wonderful adventure of life. — universeness
Stop recommending that we should harm the universe by refusing to exist within it. — universeness
Don't be so scared of life, don't be a coward! — universeness
I lay before thee, life and the curse, therefore choose life so thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.
Even atheists like me can find some use in theistic style prose. — universeness
So that means that all the harm they suffer is undeserved. That means it is unjust. — Bartricks
Don't then just blurt stuff that doesn't in any way engage with the argument. — Bartricks
Saying something doesn't make it true. — Bartricks
Another question for you - see if you can just answer it rather than blather on about unrelated matters. — Bartricks
If an act will create great injustices that another person will suffer, does that imply that it is wrong to do it, other things being equal? — Bartricks
Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe?
— universeness
Er, no. What a silly question. The universe is not a person. Do you think the universe has feelings? Do you think the universe is a bit miffed today? Do trees talk to you? — Bartricks
Bollocks. — Bartricks
Another of your clumsy questions which ignores the vital details and naunces involved. Try to think a little deeper. For example, what REALLY matters is I can kill and a group can decide that another must die. Who was justified in doing what is normally postscript and can even be reviewed and reviewed again over time. All that matters in the case of the individual facing such a situation is will they get killed or can they or other interested parties prevent it.So, your view is that if enough of us judge you do deserve to die, then you do? — Bartricks
And it has nothing to do with humans. It has everything to do with persons or minds. — Bartricks
it is quite the opposite of arrogant as no one is actually making a judgement call on behalf of another. — schopenhauer1
Sorry, but antinatalism is not CREATING problems for OTHERS which causes a person to thus deal with those problems. — schopenhauer1
This is the naturalistic fallacy. Being a product of nature, and intentionally following an ethic because it is seen as "natural" are two different things.. If that is what you are getting at.. — schopenhauer1
it's a process that is completely based on decisions and actions that are not inevitable. — schopenhauer1
But I would never create a situation of harm for people JUST so they can overcome it and feel achievement. That itself is paternalistic aggression and not good. — schopenhauer1
Now who is anthropomorphizing? The universe can't be "harmed", and certainly by simply "not procreating". — schopenhauer1
I prefer song lyrics. — schopenhauer1
Not true as you advocate for 'prevention' of conscious/sentient lifeforms which can be harmed despite the fact such gives purpose to the universe. — universeness
Do the world a favour and stop being such a morose misanthrope. — universeness
Evolution and natural selection has no moral driver. — universeness
I am suggesting that the origins of 'birth' or 'life' has no moral driver and thus is not associated with the morality of harm or suffering. — universeness
Nature compels procreation, it's why it makes heterosexual males fervently attracted to females and makes heterosexual females fervently attracted to males. Do you think your infinitesimal antinatalism can compete. :rofl: — universeness
Of course it can, I am not anthropomorphising, we are OF the universe, that is FACT.
If we are removed from it then the universe will be harmed/diminished, especially if it turns out that we are the only lifeform in the universe with our level of cognitive ability. Even if there are others, we may still be incredibly rare. To advocate antinatalism is therefore highly irresponsible and reckless, if not just plain stupid. — universeness
We are OF the universe so yes it has feelings through us, as it has purpose through us. — universeness
Giving purpose to the universe literally doesn't make sense to me. — schopenhauer1
Non-sequitor and ad hom. — schopenhauer1
This doesn't make sense to me. The "origins of birth" is not a disembodied thing, but a decision/action made on one person on behalf of another and indeed is laden with values about what should or should not be done and how we view harms. — schopenhauer1
Being attracted to someone is a complex phenomenon shaped by genes, development, and to a large extent cultural expectations. That is another debate though. That is not the question at hand. — schopenhauer1
How morose and misanthropic of you to say so!We owe the universe and the "species" nothing.. "They" are not entities that have the capacity to be owed. A category error — schopenhauer1
So, you think that if a thinking thing is in the universe, then the universe also thinks? I am in my underpants. Therefore my underpants think. — Bartricks
Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that the universe itself has a mind and has desires and so on. How does that affect my argument? — Bartricks
and if there's a premise that you think is false, don't just say that. Your opinions count for nothing unless they're backed by reason. So, show that a premise is false - or show that there is a reasonable doubt about it anyway - by showing how the negation of that premise follows from premises that appear self-evidently true.
Then thank me for teaching you how to reason like a boss, as opposed to just saying stuff. — Bartricks
The parents would need to be held accountable for the misery that their children go through! Only then will the full meaning of antinatalism sink in! — Agent Smith
Is the child responsible for any pain/suffering/stretch-marked skin etc caused to the mother during the birth process or is it a consequence of an evolutionary process that has no inherent moral driver? — universeness
True. It is an argument that every human action is potentially harmful and therefore no action should be taken. — I like sushi
The point being if you follow through the thought it is both impractical and ridiculous. — I like sushi
There is something a little clandestine in the thought that innocents deserve no harm because this kind of implies that the guilty deserve harm. — I like sushi
Then it is a question of who decides who is or is not guilty. — I like sushi
Anyway, I will continue to work on my argument for antinatalism I suggest you work on an argument against it. — I like sushi
Where are the supporting documents that children chose to be born? There are none! — Agent Smith
The suffering are sold on the idea of anitnatalism. — Agent Smith
Second, the only basis upon which you think the universe has desires would also show that my underpants have desires. I conclude, then, that you are not very good at understanding or making arguments. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.