Ligotti in his book called pro-natalists as part of the "Cult of the Grinning Martyrs" — schopenhauer1

why would you misconstrue a reasoned ethic with a cult, whereby people blindly believe unreasoned ideas and charismatic cult leaders? At least be apt with your derisions. — schopenhauer1

Err. Contradicting yourself much?

I mean does natalism even feel it must rally around some charismatic leader? Does it even have to explain itself to the general public?

The straw man was that you implied that antinatalists are trying to (politically) impose policies on people, — schopenhauer1

So you agree that you are ignoring the OP as given and simply seizing yet another opportunity to burden me with your personal hobby horse project? I must suffer as you have suffered with this pointless philosophy of committing suicide but only by proxy. Negating life so as to remove that chore from the next generation in advance. Somehow that thought becomes a solace.

This is yet more sidelining the ethical issue into some vague descriptive one. — schopenhauer1

Vague? Is that the best you’ve got? But enough antinatalism unless you can actually make it relevant to the OP as it was set out. Show some self-discipline here.

I mean does natalism even feel it must rally around some charismatic leader? Does it even have to explain itself to the general public? — apokrisis

And again, how is antinatalism "rallying around some charismatic leader"? And if you are misconstruing me referencing an author as the "cult leader", then don't reference anyone ever again in a philosophical debate :lol:. Ridiculous.

Also, the fact that people UNTHINKINGLY do something is EXACTLY what philosophical thinking is contrary to. What kind of thinking is this? I know you don't really believe that (unquestioning traditional norms MUST be the right attitude). And if you say it is, I am sure I can find cases where you DON'T believe it, providing an inconsistency (and simple bias) in your thinking.

So you agree that you are ignoring the OP as given and simply seizing yet another opportunity to burden me with your personal hobby horse project? I must suffer as you have suffered with this pointless philosophy of committing suicide but only by proxy. Negating life so as to remove that chore from the next generation in advance. Somehow that thought becomes a solace. — apokrisis

So now you are red herring the point again by evading the fact that you accused me of believing AN should be IMPOSING itself POLITICALLY. That is false, and you have not admitted to the false assumption/accusation. So do you admit that this notion of yours is at least false now?

As far as being an irrelevant point to the OP, actually, it addresses it pretty pointedly, as even you admitted that (limited) AN is one part of a solution to the problem. But in any case, the broader issue with your "case" is that it lacks an axiological underpinning, confusing descriptive and ethical, and pretending AS IF they can be the same thing. You cannot square that circle. Values are a thing. Axiological considerations (aesthetics, ethics, values, etc.) cannot just be described away. They are at the least subjectively "real" to the individual. So, in this way, I am laying out ethical foundations, whilst you are whittling away in the descriptive elements that cannot cross that divide.

ALSO, and perhaps even most important, there is an EXISTENTIAL aspect to discussing "the end of human civilization". It isn't JUST about resources, but what humans are supposed to get out of life (if that question itself belies a certain pro-natalist attitude that deserves to be questioned itself!). So yeah this does have to do with your OP, but it doesn't necessarily ASSUME the same goals, values, etc. that belie your unstated values.

But as I've pointed out, you haven't inquired deeply enough into how indigenous lives are actually structured, both as biology and sociology.

My own position here is based on a deep knowledge of all that. — apokrisis

Presumptuous.

That account depends on the just-so stories provided by dialectic. It contrasts cooperation and competition, for instance, without any indication of how much of each ought be present. And in doing so it fails to tell us what to do. Yet again.

So back to the critique of Hegel and dialectic.

Reiterating, there are two bits of logic in my post, not unrelated but also not the same. The first is the classic Popperian argument that historicism is generally unfalsifiable, which we can to some extent extend to dialectic arguments generally. The second is the lack of fixity as to the third moment, the synthesis.

This latter is shown explicitly in classical logic by the explosion ρ^~ρ⊃ψ, that from a contradiction anything follows....

My suggestion is that in most cases the synthesis is fixed by other factors external to the dialectic, and the dialectic then used to justify that fixing. Which is an invalid move. — Banno

Given a thesis and a synthesis, anything goes. The juxtaposition of cooperation and competition does not lead of necessity to either Model A or Model B; they are not inevitable.

So I think he acknowledges this would have been the way to go, but now the best we can do is maintain since reversing is out of the question — schopenhauer1

Perhaps he did. Hard to tell. I wouldn't presume to represent indigenous cultures.

Your presence here augments the point made above, antinatalism being another extreme option outside of the supposedly defining dialectic.

At its core, dialectic is capable of explaining anything, and so ends up explaining nothing.

And the physical "constraints" of our world do not fix what we can and cannot do.

Too much shouting for this time of the morning.

"Mabel! Call the plumber. It's back again!"

More spit.

You might try acting on your claim to be rational, and actually address the argument I presented above. Your refusal to address that or the is/ought problem shows a shallowness unbecoming. You are a clever fellow, unable to accept and work with criticism; the engineer who thought he would enlighten the poor benighted philosophers, only to discover that he had no idea what philosophy was about. When faced with a philosophical problem you refer to obtuse and irrelevant research papers, or try to befuddle with extended posts not pertinent to the point, and when held to account for these you spit.

Read the story of the Emperor's New Cloths.

Anyway, that's my bit. I've put up with your spit for page after page. If you can't offer something more, there's a point where one shrugs and walks away.

Your problem is that I win national awards for my writings on these issues. I publish books. I speak at conferences. You just sit there fuming. Thinking I give a shit.

Your problem is that I win national awards for my writings on these issues. I publish books. I speak at conferences. — apokrisis

That's your problem, not mine. If you can't even address the simple concerns of an aged retiree, then all that is irrelevant. An appeal to your own authority is still invalid. And if you don't give a shit, don't reply.

Oh Banno. There really is no violin small enough to serenade your self-portrayal as the eternal victim of these exchanges. Comedy gold.

I revised your quote — Fire Ologist

...back to the original, from Anscombe, in Intentionality, and as used by Searle and many others. Cheers.