I don't believe that. — Tarskian

What you believe does not change reality. I was not talking about a specific year, it was a generalisation. The scale and intensity of conflicts has changed quite dramatically.

The rest of what you said is probably just an attempt to bait an emotional reaction maybe? Either way, there is not anything substantial as an argument against the claim that the vast majority of people are not "craving war" as you put it.

I do not see people beating each other everyday let alone looking to join a war. I do strongly believe that many younger men are seeking some kind of 'evil' to fight in some way. Most are probably willing to fight for what they deem as 'good'. These items can be, and are, sometimes misdirected by nefarious characters and/or desperation which cause bogeymen to appear where there are none.

You see things a bit like people who eat enjoy eating a steak but who swear that they would never kill an animal. — Tarskian

You know this how? More blind speculation. Saying things is just saying things.

The truth is I would actually be willing to pay more to kill what I eat. My personal opinion is if you are not willing to kill an animal you should not eat meat. I have expressed this view on numerous occasions to numerous people.

As an analogy of views on war. I just do not see this at all. I have travelled the world and not seen a single war break out. You, on the other hand, speak as if people are out there making war all the time. They are not. This is visible to everyone.

We are clearly carnivore. — Tarskian

Omnivorous.

On the one side, the farmers were sick and tired of roving gangs who stole their harvests. On the other side, not everybody wanted to fight. Some farmers just wanted to farm. So, in exchange for a share in the harvest, the farmers appointed their own gangsters to take on the other gangs.

If we don't do any of the fighting by ourselves, that is because we pay other people to do it for us. Someone has to do all of the killing required to protect the harvests. Apparently, it is just not you. In that case, you instead pay for someone else to do the killing for you. — Tarskian

And this is a good point to argue against yourself in terms of currently living in a peaceful time. We have moved on from slavery and serfdom. I can already guess the response to this, so let me make clear I do not mean there is NO slavery NOR serfdom anymore, only that it is no longer the norm.

Why should women in a good society need men to 'provide for' them? — Vera Mont

In the West, men have heard women loud and clear. That is why men don't provide anymore. If you manage to provide for yourself, fine. If not, then also fine. That is obviously not our problem, is it?

Every member of a society has obligations, but they do not include submitting one's body to another's will. — Vera Mont

It is "My body my choice." versus "My wallet my choice." If I do not get what I want, why would I give you what you want? If you don't like the deal, then you bring your body elsewhere, while I bring my wallet elsewhere. Simple, no?

It is pointless to make a deal with someone who just wants to take, take, take but in fact does not want to give anything in return. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Outside the West, there are still lots of women who eagerly want to exchange favors. They want a man to provide for them, while the man wants sexual access. The traditional pattern still works like a charm over here. You give something, you get something. You can't just take, take, take, and give nothing in return. On what planet is that supposed to work?

Most are probably willing to fight for what they deem as 'good'. — I like sushi

Yes, it is better to provide them with some good excuse. If it sounds somewhat reasonable, they will go for it. Provide them with uniforms, weapons, and training, and watch them ruthlessly kill the enemy. They just love it. They will see themselves as heroes.

I agree that motivating people for war requires good spin doctors. A good spin doctor is undoubtedly worth more than a good soldier.

My personal opinion is if you are not willing to kill an animal you should not eat meat. — I like sushi

That's how we turned vegetarian. When we moved to the country, my OG asked where he should build the chicken coop. I said, we're not having chickens. Why not? Because I won't kill them and I bet you won't, either. But that's hypocritical. Yup. So, let's try not eating what we don't kill. Okay. It's worked for 40 years, so, I guess...

But that's a digression from the question of war. If men want to go war, and men have pretty been in charge of things through history, why has there ever been conscription? I'm supposing that the men who run things and want wars are not the same ones who actually have to fight the wars. Most of the latter would prefer to be left alone to work their farms or looms or forges and play with their kids on a sunny day.

In the West, men have heard women loud and clear. That is why men don't provide anymore. If you manage to provide for yourself, fine. If not, then also fine. That is obviously not our problem, is it? — Tarskian

And this is your idea of a good society?

If you don't like the deal, then you bring your body elsewhere, while I bring my wallet elsewhere. Simple, no? — Tarskian

And this is your idea of a good society?

Outside the West, there are still lots of women who eagerly want to exchange favors. — Tarskian

And that is your idea of a good society.

But that's a digression from the question of war. If men want to go war, and men have pretty been in charge of things through history, why has there ever been conscription? I'm supposing that the men who run things and want wars are not the same ones who actually have to fight the wars. Most of the latter would prefer to be left alone to work their farms or looms or forges and play with their kids on a sunny day. — Vera Mont

I agree. Being humans though, when we see something 'evil' we want to correct it as we are visceral creatures and physical force is a habit of animal nature for obvious reasons. The willingness to fight comes through the belief in the extent of the 'evil' perceived. Being highly social creatures we are more than just mere brute force though.

And this is your idea of a good society? — Vera Mont

In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me.

But then again, there are enough western men nowadays simping in the friend zone of an entitled boss babe. It is called "simpflation". The only male authority that these men have ever known is their single mother. That is why they gravitate towards bossy masculine women to duly bully them around. I am sure that you can easily find yourself that kind of feminized little man-bitch to domesticate and exploit ad libitum. If so, more power to you!

So, yes, for a lot of men, a "good society" amounts to getting the opportunity to simping around in the friend zone. I wish them all the best from SE Asia!

Bertrand Russell - Authority and the Individual

(I believe)

The belief is all I have.

I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions ...

I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true. 

My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule ...

... the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. 

... my model of belief suggests ...
— Chet Hawkins
You're entitled to "believe" whatever you like but these "beliefs" are not supported by either corroborable evidence or valid arguments. — 180 Proof

Youre failure to recognize the evidence all around you, and my valid arguments does not change their validity. You are saying nothing that argues the other way, just saying my offering has no evidence.

Proof is not possible for anyone. Belief is all ANYONE has, including you. Not realizing it and agreeing to that unprovable 'fact' is silly. You hide behind the probable and that is order-apology, cowardice. But the reverse is not true. That is to say, I am still quite rational and erudite, and I use logic every day (I am a software architect with 40 years experience).

I am saying belief has power because it motivates us. You would deny that unprovable fact? Again, proof is not the goal, but the evidence IS INDEED all around you.

In fact, the atom itself supports my theory.

Fearful orderly protons, manifestations of fear clump towards the neutral balanced anger mass of neutrons and thus the fear's higher energy forms identity (elemental character). The chaotic electrons are dissipated in the space surrounding the nucleus showing off their higher energy and the relationship between time and energy as well because they drift into the future like all desire/chaos does. As such every manifestation, even at quantum levels is nothing but this same pattern repeated over and over again in a hierarchy of meaning and mass, both.

You're merely rationalizing, not reasoning – preaching, not philosophizing. We don't even disagree, Chet; we're playing different games, talking past one another. — 180 Proof

I can agree that we seem unable to relate well to one another. But no, I am reasoning these issues and not JUST rationalizing.

Reason can be defined as:
A basis or cause for belief, action, fact, or event.
A statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
The mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
The capacity of applying logic consciously to seek the truth.
The process of evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts.

ra·tion·al·i·za·tion
[ˌraSHənləˈzāSHən, ˌraSHənlˌīˈzāSHən]
noun
the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.

So, reason and rationalization ARE NOT contradictory in many cases. What it comes down to really is whether each party ACCEPTS or LIKES the logic used. It's just the same as whether or not you ACCEPT OR LIKE the evidence I claim is evidence.

You are stuck in order-apology and that is clear to me as it is about most academics. But reality is not trapped amid order alone. It has equal parts chaos, and anger/balance. If it did not, the imbalance at that fundamental level would effectively almost immediately disintegrate the universe. It's the built in truth that I refer to, the great tendency to balance, that is why everything is at it is. And these tendencies play out precisely the same as emotions do. All quanta want, fear, and are. The reason we anthropomorphize the universe is because there is evidence to see all around us that matter itself is emotive. The animists were always a better religion that modem faiths because they were more primal, based in mere feeling and observation. And by the way, observation is quintessentially an act of fear. It's true that all choices have some of each primal emotion in them but they are all limits as x approaches purity when we limit the action to one part of the whole behavior, like observation, or the need to be aware.

the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous ... The terms are effectively synonymous.
No they aren't. For example, dying is not life's goal, only life's direction; thus, it's incoherent (or "disingenuous") to conflate them. — 180 Proof

I was conflating them in the case I referred to them, because they are the same in that case. I realize your case as well, and that is not what I am referring to.

It is the goal of this universe perfection. Every particle in the universe has that as a default goal. Directions are always thus a sub-effort within that goal.

And this is your idea of a good society?
— Vera Mont

In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me.

But then again, there are enough western men nowadays simping in the friend zone of an entitled boss babe. It is called "simpflation". The only male authority that these men have ever known is their single mother. That is why they gravitate towards bossy masculine women to duly bully them around. I am sure that you can easily find yourself that kind of feminized little man-bitch to domesticate and exploit ad libitum. If so, more power to you!

So, yes, for a lot of men, a "good society" amounts to getting the opportunity to simping around in the friend zone. I wish them all the best from SE Asia! — Tarskian

How did you two get all sexist in this disucssion?

Let me try to state the state of things and see if that helps.

Gender is on a scale and the leftists are mostly correct about that. There is ample evidence throughout the natural world and in humanity as well. The truth of nature also shows us that extant phenotypes are plastic in how they change. That means humanity could evolve in any direction that could be supported with reasonable balance. Any sufficiently imbalanced system will not last very long at all.

For example, humanity could evolve into the hive morphology and there is some evidence that we are moving in that direction. Genders in the past were more highly polarized mostly because society demanded the clarity and simplicity of the polar gender manifestation and roles. Many middle ground humans were simply killed by their own families if their infant presentations were not clearly understood. That still happens today.

Humanity could also evolve into an asexual style. If we all decided that was cool, we could force nature that way, because plentiful evidence exists to show that is possible and still produces thriving species.

Humanity could expand technology and make it to where all manner of chimeras and oddities were possible as well. That is highly likely and some of this 'mad scientist' type stuff has happened and is happening now.

But the difference between the classical gender roles is really JUST order/chaos balance, again, like EVERYTHING is. Men are overly orderly and tend to be the hierarchy within all societies as a natural order. Women are overly chaotic and tend to be resentful of the order of men within all societies as a natural expression of their greater desire/freedom/chaos. Orderly societies can integrate and build BETTER than chaotic ones, so feminist or chaotic societies DO form, but they fail. They disintegrate as chaos is the primary drive.

You see this same exact pattern in general in the left and right wing of politics. Real conservatives and orderly types will usually band together into groups with a solidity of identity that is integrating. It also causes wars with external societies because those are OTHER orders. But the point is they can easily team up and hold the line in orderly fashion. Chaos cannot do that. It always seeks to undermine even itself, selfishly. It IS more creative and expansive. So there is value there. But wisdom, philosophy, balance, shows us that both are needed for the ideal to flourish.

The left and desire types are full of delusional worthlessness. They wallow in it. They all think less of each other and themselves and watching it happen in American politics and abroad, it is easy to see. They seem faithless and scattered. But they do come together on the freedom points, the openness, in general. Likewise, the right wingers will stick with identity over anything, mistrustful and even hateful of others. Identity, fear and order, are the source of bigotry. I think it's interesting that social media has propelled the scattered, goofy left into a powerhouse in modern times. If they could control their wallowing in worthlessness they would be much more successful, but, they cannot, by definition. The polarization of their policies forces them to be unwise. It's the same on the right wing, but different. They wallow in delusional worthiness, which is caused by fear. And then they become autocratic. bigoted, and too hierarchical. So, both side alone fail because alone they are unwise.

And everyone, please spare me the exceptions arguments. It's just a tendency (a big one) that more women are chaos leaned and more men are order leaned. There are many exceptions on a scale, of course, showing again the fight, the conflict of balance itself.

Anyway ...

Humanity could also evolve into an asexual style. If we all decided that was cool, we could force nature that way, because plentiful evidence exists to show that is possible and still produces thriving species. — Chet Hawkins

In my opinion, reprogramming the biological firmware of humanity will result in something full of bugs, i.e. contradictions. The likelihood that reproduction will still be functional, is close to zero.

In my opinion, reprogramming the biological firmware of humanity will result in something full of bugs, i.e. contradictions. The likelihood that reproduction will still be functional, is close to zero. — Tarskian

I tend to agree because humans have gotten tech than empowers their choice WELL BEYOND their wisdom. That means chaos will ensue for the near future and disintegrate all societies, plunging the world into more wars and such until an orderly regime rise again to assert a 'new world order'. But that is just as terrifying a specter because of the right wing over-expression of fear.

We have begun to discover that tolerance has a limit as well. If you accept too much chaos as daily fare, as we are now in the first world and the whole world in social media, then the chaos seeps into everything and as mentioned, the nature of chaos will cause self-indulgence and self-hatred.

More than ever society and humanity need real wisdom, a BETTER valid philosophy, that is not based in religion and encompasses all morality. It is the only valid way to approach Utopia anyway. And I do believe the approach to Utopia is wise, even if the chaos-types try for too much change too fast and they SHOULD be slowed down. Only (more) time will tell.

a BETTER valid philosophy, that is not based in religion and encompasses all morality. — Chet Hawkins

The history of society is one of growing degeneracy and growing depravity. You cannot even trust yourself because all of us grew up in the degenerated filth and got indoctrinated by it. The oldest record of the rules of morality is undoubtedly the most usable. You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran.

The willingness to fight comes through the belief in the extent of the 'evil' perceived. — I like sushi

And the threat being perceived. The protection of loved kin and territory is also a strong animal instinct. But there is a huge difference between willingness to fight for one's convictions and loyalties, and a desire for war.

In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me. — Tarskian

How does not being forced to procreate equate to getting something for nothing? Your reasoning, as often happens, eludes me.

How did you two get all sexist in this disucssion? — Chet Hawkins

Without even trying. I said a good society would let women make their own decisions as to the bearing of young. My purpose in saying so had little to do with sex and much to do with overpopulation. My naive notion of a good society is a community of self-regulating individuals who all contribute to and share in the welfare of the whole.

How does not being forced to procreate equate to getting something for nothing? — Vera Mont

If a woman does not want to reproduce, she can easily achieve that by not making any deal or arrangement with a man. It is really not difficult to do. What is there so hard about staying alone?

The history of society is one of growing degeneracy and growing depravity. You cannot even trust yourself because all of us grew up in the degenerated filth and got indoctrinated by it. The oldest record of the rules of morality is undoubtedly the most usable. You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran. — Tarskian

I understand the sentiment. But I do disagree. Your take on it is quite order-centric.

Wisdom is not order-centric. Wisdom is balanced. So, going backwards to order-apology, order-centrism is not a GOOD path. It is partly Utopian of me to suggest that people CAN balance their chaos, because, as you rightly point out, depravity and desire-apology has increased steadily I would say since the 1960s until now.

But despite what a left leaning reader might think or believe, I am not right wing either. I do have hope and in a new morality that is more properly defined than the old faiths. I confess I have not read the Torah or the Quran, but, I have read many sections of them and listen for decades to scholars who supposedly made such efforts their life's work. I do not find balanced wisdom in these books, these old faiths, precisely because chaos is not handled well at all, and order is favored, which IS NOT wise.

I do realize that to integrate and build a better world, if people are going to be such failures, then order is a better path than chaos. But this is a thread on Utopia. As such it converges on real wisdom, real balance. That means integrating chaos properly.

My own efforts towards understanding and informing others about morality is based in the ideas I posted quickly and briefly in this thread. If those old ways were best, they would have worked better. But as my posts show, morality is hard. In fact, as choices become more and more moral they are harder and harder to make.

Any near Utopian society would require balanced order and chaos. But, prosperity should be for the good of all, not just hard workers or people who are smart or rich. IN fact it's rather obvious that wealth should be controlled such that everyone per capita has the same access to resources and services. Then, all the classical objections of the chaos crowd are vastly diminished.

Each political wing has its issues but there is always a flip-flop. The right wing loves personal order and then when a person like that walks out their front door they are all chaos and winner take all. That is deeply immoral. Conversely the left wing is all self-indulgence personally and then tries to solve that with rigorous order from the state. Both are unwise.

I actually like Socrates' or Plato's idea in the Republic, a Sophocracy. And NO I do not mean ruled by sophists (a poorly defined word). But yes a rule of golden souls, the wise, is BETTER. We must therefore identify wisdom and be able to test for it. We are not allowed to throw our hands up as a Pragmatist will and say, 'we are only human and all corrupt'. That is not wise. We MUST try. So, defining wisdom and testing for it will cause the ruling class to be BETTER than any other possible ruling class could be. That is a great first step.

What is there so hard about staying alone? — Tarskian

In a well-regulated egalitarian society, it's quite easy. It's not even hard to have consensual intimate relations or protracted marital commitment without progeny.
In authoritarian, patriarchal societies, young girls are bartered like cattle and used as sexual objects/ reproductive vessels. That, too is a reality of bad societies.

Without even trying. I said a good society would let women make their own decisions as to the bearing of young. My purpose in saying so had little to do with sex and much to do with overpopulation. My naive notion of a good society is a community of self-regulating individuals who all contribute to and share in the welfare of the whole. — Vera Mont

I love the latter part of your idea.

But, no, the first part is not wise (to me).

No one is separate. We are all one. The so-called 'unity principle', my favorite term for oneness, means that we are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. You are literally me and I am literally you.

So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained.

But punishment and reward both are immoral. I will not explain that all the way now. This post is enough of a response. Suffice it to say that moral truth is that all choices are punished or rewarded in the feedback the choice puts on you by truth immediately. There is no need for society to heap more upon either side of choice. Almost no one understands, let alone admits to, this wisdom.

Restraint is not punishment. We restrain those who cannot help but continually punish themselves until we have had time to attempt to teach wisdom to them. So, restraint is different and can be better than punishment.

Prison is ridiculous. I personally love the version of restraint I saw in the 'Last Samauri' where the old warrior followed Tom Cruise's character around and made sure he did not do anything wrong. I think that would open up a new huge occupation and calling in the world for tough life coaches that is well needed. And the added impetus of invaded privacy for people that cannot stop making the same bad choices would be pretty strong motivation to change. Anyway ... on to Utopia ...

In a well-regulated egalitarian society, it's quite easy. It's not even hard to have to have consensual intimate relations or protracted marital commitment without progeny.

Many men are perfectly fine with casual sex, friends with benefits, or situationships with zero commitment.

In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better.

But then again, that approach does not work particularly well outside the West.

Unlike in the West, women over here generally do not want to provide sexual-tension relief services free of charge. They expect something in return and they typically want children as well. All in all, their approach works better for me, because on the long run the service is much more reliable. If they keep getting what they want, I also keep getting what I want.

So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained. — Chet Hawkins

That may be fine or horrific, depending on who defines "immoral" and what they mean by restraint. If you mean stop people from beating and raping one another, I'm in agreement. However, forcing people to have more children than they can cherish, or than the ecosystem can support, I don't see as either moral or beneficial to society.
How did birth control turn into prisons?

In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better. — Tarskian

And, again, what has your twisted idea of the nature of men and women to do with reproductive choice?

And the threat being perceived. The protection of loved kin and territory is also a strong animal instinct. But there is a huge difference between willingness to fight for one's convictions and loyalties, and a desire for war. — Vera Mont

I know. I was the one arguing against what Tarkian said in regards to "craving war".

There is something to be said for the possibility of humanity slipping back into feudalistic tendencies with societal collapse. Maybe it will happen again. I hope not though.

and establishing universal reproductive rights for women — Vera Mont

"Utopia is when we can kill babies".
"Utopia is when my politics is in place".

Outstanding.

So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained.
— Chet Hawkins
That may be fine or horrific, depending on who defines "immoral" and what they mean by restraint. — Vera Mont

I agree heartily. The 'moral' police of Iran and China are horridly immoral.

If you mean stop people from beating and raping one another, I'm in agreement. However, forcing people to have more children than they can cherish, or than the ecosystem can support, I don't see as either moral or beneficial to society.
How did birth control turn into prisons? — Vera Mont

Again, I think I agree with you. No forced pregnancies. But, paying it forward as a species duty will probably not be needed much longer. Technology will eventually make artificial wombs I suspect and sooner than we think.

I am a proponent of extant overpopulation, meaning we are already badly overpopulated at about 4 Earths worth of sustainable population. I'd say it's moral greed to have more than replacement level children at this time. But as technology increases the amount of people can trend up, yet, I must admit if I have to drive behind EVEN MORE morons day by day, I'd still vote no on more people, even if tech can make them well fed and such without stressing the Earth. We are fast approaching too many rats in a maze that all go crazy and bite each other population density.

The birth control / prisons thing I am not sure I follow. Utopia visions would include weighing in on both of those issues, so, ...

In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better.
— Tarskian
And, again, what has your twisted idea of the nature of men and women to do with reproductive choice? — Vera Mont

I mean tech is already at the level where, as Simon and Garfunkle say, 'They'd never match my sweet imagination ...' and what I mean by tech is porn or other aids that reduce that whole thing as a need. I am NOT saying I do not prefer or would not prefer an ideal real woman, but, I surely have not found even a tolerable one yet (and I am 58 years old). But most of that discussion is for another thread.

(I realize you were answering Tarskian, but I was replying so I did to that as well.)

"Utopia is when we can kill babies". — Lionino

Technically procreating babies will eventually lead to their death, so since we KNOW this...

"Utopia is when my politics is in place". — Lionino

So apparently when you PRESS/FORCE people into this system (the one currently in place called existence/modern society/economy/governmental system/biological being), THAT is not politics? Naive indeed.

Outstanding.

"Utopia is when we can kill babies". — Lionino

Whom are you quoting? Nobody can a kill a baby that was never conceived, but one that was brought into the world though coercion or brainwashing is prey to every kind of hazard, aggression and abuse.

The birth control / prisons thing I am not sure I follow. — Chet Hawkins

My original statement had been that women should be free to decide whether or not to have children.
I didn't go into tedious detail, but reproductive autonomy - which I thought was fairly obvious - includes accurate information, the availability of safe birth control, and freedom from coercion. Where these three requirements have been met, the birth-rate declined to a sustainable level. I assumed this was well known.
Your riff on justice, while perfectly valid, didn't seem related to that earlier remark.

But, paying it forward as a species duty will probably not be needed much longer. Technology will eventually make artificial wombs I suspect and sooner than we think. — Chet Hawkins

I suppose there will always be some people who so yearn to preserve their DNA that if they can't physically replicate will resort to any means. But they would be a small minority. Most people, given self-determination, will either have not have children according to how much they think can offer a child.

A well-functioning society can make room for all kinds of reproductive arrangements. Some individuals are so wrapped up in their art or scientific research or spiritual pursuit that they have no need for close human connections. Some are sociable, but prefer the company of peers, rather than commiting to a family. They may not want any children at all; nor would they make good parents. Some people - indivdually, as couples, as extended family units or polyamorous compacts could produce, love and support several children. Some families that either cannot or choose not to reproduce physically nevertheless love children and are happy to adopt or foster someone else's mistake. This doesn't need to be complicated or litigious or onerous. A good society doesn't assign arbitrary functions to its members; doesn't interfere in their personal lives, except in order to protect the vulnerable and help the helpless.

You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran. — Tarskian

Not so. Consider ...

• Code of Ani c2500 BCE
• Code of Ur-Nammu c2100 BCE
• Code of Hammurabi c1760 BCE
• Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
• Analects of Kongzi 475 BCE
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law 451 BCE
• Law of Manu 200 BCE
• Code of Justinian 529 CE
• Tang Code of China 624 CE
• Sharia (Quran) 632 CE

My original statement had been that women should be free to decide whether or not to have children.
I didn't go into tedious detail, but reproductive autonomy - which I thought was fairly obvious - includes accurate information, the availability of safe birth control, and freedom from coercion. Where these three requirements have been met, the birth-rate declined to a sustainable level. I assumed this was well known. — Vera Mont

:up: Once people are educated, they generally have fewer or no children. The education just doesn't go far enough. When it becomes a moral issue and less economic/lifestyle issue, the education is at the optimal level.

• Code of Ani c2500 BCE
• Code of Ur-Nammu c2100 BCE
• Code of Hammurabi c1760 BCE
• Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
• Analects of Kongzi 475 BCE
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law 451 BCE
• Law of Manu 200 BCE
• Code of Justinian 529 CE
• Tang Code of China 624 CE
• Sharia (Quran) 632 CE — 180 Proof

**Good timeline, but it was the move to make the code of ethics attributed directly from a singular God of the Universe, who wants humans to act a certain way, that is the innovation (aka ethical monotheism). This of course, creates the problem of extremism, because of it's the God of the Universe, and not just the whims and demands of a king, however powerful, there is no way around it for those who believe it's binding. Since especially Islam is a "universal religion", it isn't regionalized or "nationalized", but then becomes a struggle (Jihad), and if the religion promotes violence in the name of protecting the religion from infidels, you have a serious problem on your hands globally, for groups that want to take that interpretation.

Greco-Roman ethics were tied to reason, and were amenable to various "Schools" and interpretations. They weren't permanent directive from the god(s). Greco-Roman religion (not philosophical ways of living like Stoicism et. al), was often a combination of the civic (pray to the city-state's deity or deities), the personal (one can take on mystery cult religions like Mithras, or other foreign forms of spirituality), and the familial (worship the household deities and build home alters). There were too many cross-currents of beliefs for there to be one strong ethical "way of life", for good or bad.

**You can attribute that to a combination of Judaism around the Babylonian Exile mixed with influence from Zoroastrianism.

Even the "Mandate of Heaven" and Confucianism was really more about following traditions and proper relationships (socio-political hierarchy), not necessarily about a "Code of Laws". Hinduism was not a monolith, and had several major (and hundreds of subsects) of various ways of following the gods. There were themes, but nothing quite "codified" in detailed prescribed belief and action, other than priestly rituals.

Nobody can a kill a baby that was never conceived — Vera Mont

Yes, we can. A baby inside the womb is alive. What is this nonsense?

Technically procreating babies will eventually lead to their death — schopenhauer1

Dumb.

Once people are educated, they generally have fewer or no children — schopenhauer1

The reason for that isn't what you are trying to imply. And the consequence of it is not positive, it is in fact catastrophic.

THAT is not politics? — schopenhauer1

No, it is not. You have to learn how to use words correctly before starting an argument.