If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".
Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born. — Tzeentch
I answered this at the end of my last post to you:And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of? — Tzeentch
You are an antinatalist because you think it's immoral not to be such, as you think reproduction is an imposition on those who are born, as you did not have their consent. You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? I — universeness
I agree, but we are not currently in danger of extinction due to lack of reproduction, so they are able to make such choices and overrule the natural imperative to reproduce but they may have to experience some suffering due to having to make that choice. Is it moral that the rich and powerful have more choice over reproduction that the poor? The poor used to have lots of kids as they believed the more kids you have the more chance you will be looked after when your are old. That didnt work out well either, it mostly failed. Desperate, poorly conceived solutions like antinatalism or having 20 kids will normally fail.Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent. — Tzeentch
It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking. — Tzeentch
I dont want to get all panto on you but Oh yes you are!But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently!
— universeness
I'm not. — Tzeentch
If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you. — Tzeentch
I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.
All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.
You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.
You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks. — Tzeentch
Well it wouldnt be true antinatalism then, if that's actually the case. If he doesn't care to reduce human suffering he doesn't behold an ultimate ethical principle for ending all suffering. — Benj96
All we can merely offer is a change in the quality of the buzz - how someone gets their pleasure in life, a step away from something absurd/toxic/dangerous and towards something worthwhile, meaningful and wholesome. — Benj96
A job well done is just that - done.
You should feel proud of that fact, and move on. — Benj96
I do appreciate what you are saying and I broadly agree with your advice, BUT when you are dealing with those who post in an evanhellical style then they will not desist as long as they have a platform, and we cannot remove all their platforms because that would suggest we cannot deal with them in a civilised manner and still defeat them. If the antinatalist fountain keeps spouting, then I for one will keep trying to bail out our ship. Better that, than trying to save some if we all end up in the water as I can't swim and would be too busy drowning to help save anyone else — universeness
I dont know if you have read through his recent posts on this page regarding his flavour of antinatalism.
It is based on a moral dilemma, not the issue of human suffering. I think his main posit is simply that it is immoral to bring a newborn into this existence without its consent and as its impossible to obtain its consent, the moral default position must be applied which MUST be, the decision not to procreate.
That's my attempt to 'steelman' his bizarre logic.
2h — universeness
For then they're on our side. We can only do our best to convince the fountainists to become bailors. The rest is up to the fates. — Benj96
But as we cannot know for certain how our children will turn out we do take a chance by procreating. But we do know ourselves - as parents - we may be sure that we have the best intentions to do right by our children. That is usually enough to convince them (their agency) to be good because our children usually respect us as parents, as the ones that brought them into the world. — Benj96
as is the fact that natural selection will maintain those aspects of a species which best equips it for survival within the environment it finds itself in, regardless of any issue of what humans label, morality — universeness
I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection. — universeness
In that sense yes in referring to human selection. However humans are natural - born of nature itself. At what point does natural selection convert into human selection? — Benj96
Yes, but I think it's more important here, to use a concept of intent, akin to 'the imposition of an individual or group human will.'I suppose based on your distinction of "intent" and "no intent" you're referring to "choice" which pertains to agents/that which is conscious. So the difference then between natural selection and human selection would be the emergence of conscious agents with intent right? — Benj96
Does that mean then that humans are the only conscious agents with intent? Or is it perhaps a continuum graduating stepwise from a system with no agency or choice towards one that does have agency and control. And where would other animals, plants and life fall on this continuum of emergent "intent"? — Benj96
Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering? — universeness
It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine. — Down The Rabbit Hole
do you think it's really the pain/the anguish/the suffering/the agony (dukkha) that's our enemy #1? — Agent Smith
In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context? — Isaac
Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.
Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it. — Isaac
Don't want to get schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed. — Down The Rabbit Hole
... in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. — Down The Rabbit Hole
here is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates. — schopenhauer1
We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment. — schopenhauer1
A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise? — Benj96
There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society. — Benj96
What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst. — Benj96
That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement. — Benj96
It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from. — Benj96
But YOUR preference for X institutions shouldn't become someone else's burden to bear, simply because YOU think this is the case. — schopenhauer1
. It's just starting yet another game on behalf of someone else, because YOU like something — schopenhauer1
. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed. — schopenhauer1
This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, a — Benj96
I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one — Benj96
Otherwise why bother with politics or accruing any power whatsoever - If that power cannot change circumstances in any meaningful? — Benj96
Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "Np" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it? — Benj96
So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissible in the game.
Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players. — Benj96
Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing. — schopenhauer1
What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? — Benj96
The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life. — Tzeentch
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.