why should someone be able to make a decision on someone else's behalf that puts that person into conditions of non-trivial suffering? Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. — schopenhauer1

I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision.

At the end the living creature makes the choice for his own happiness" I wanna have kids ". So I will use my body (semen) as to create. What exactly is immoral on that??
Why you value that living creature suffering (since you think he shouldn't have kids) less than the potential suffering of a creature that DOESN'T even exist? Sounds fair and logical for you??

Alive woman = option ability = possible to consent or not into something = we can(and MUST) ask for her permission, she can say no! If we simply don't ask her and go rape her is totally immoral and wrong!

Unborn kid = 0 option ability =impossible to consent or not into something =we can't ask it simply! No choice option at all here!

You insist comparing these 2 cases and find them similar. Then yes don't get it at all. We will never agree on that. Let's drop it.

Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism — Antinatalist

I don't think it is at all. I don't even support utilitarianism. It is just a simple matter of choice for me as I told you. Nothing else.

Yes, I want human race to disappear. By voluntary choice. Not very realistic that this will happen in near future, but I think that way. — Antinatalist

Ok at least now you admit it. I don't agree at all and I find it irrational. But as I told you I respect every opinion so I respect yours also.

My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones — Antinatalist

Sorry but it's not the case here either.
You care about the "rights" and "potential suffering" of an "unborn creature" a "0".But you don't give a fuck for the actual suffering of the ones that are already alive!

If someone wants to have kids. And he truly wants that with all his heart. That will make him so happy and not having will make him miserable for the rest of his life. Well in that case with your theory you "condemn" a living creature's life into ACTUAL suffering and misery by urging him not to be happy and have kids for the sake of the POTENTIAL suffering of a non existing creature! You value potential suffering of a "0" more that the actual suffering of an already living person. So no, please don't say that.

You said previously that as it is impossible to consent to be born, this somehow means the choice to impose a life on someone here doesn't matter, ethically — Bartricks

Exactly and I support it.

There are lots of acts it is impossible for the affected party to consent to, such as acts of rape and other acts of coercion. You can't consent to be raped. You can consent to sex. You can't consent to rape. So, by your logic, that means rape is fine, or at least that the fact it was non-consensual doesn't matter. Which is absurd. — Bartricks

At the first case (unborn kid) it's purely impossible cause there is no way to know the choice of the unborn kid. It doesn't even have that capability!

At the rape case woman is already alive and of course she has the choice to agree or not with the sex. And she can also express it(yell, scream, hit etc) !We have also the ability to just ask her for what she wants! Ability that we don't have with the unborn kid! So at that case we CAN know her choice.It is a given fact!
It's not impossible at all as it is with the unborn kid. How you find these cases same and that I somehow support rape is beyond my logic power really.

Anyway I think we repeat the same things here over and over again. So let's drop it.

I would prefer to turn this question upside down. Life is for some people, at least, such a terrible burden that is certainly not worth of living. In earlier post I have touched the problem of suicide in many cases. — Antinatalist

That upside down thing doesn't answer at all to my question but anyway.

You keep referring to all those who suffer (and there are many indeed). You don't say anything about those who don't see life as suffering at all. And there are also many!
So since some suffer (even if some of those still prefer life as I mentioned to you at previous post) let's not have kids at all from the fear of the potential suffering! Let's end human existence. Sounds logical??

When there are no humans, there are no wars, concentration camps, genocides, famine, rapes and other sexual abuse, any other violence, no suffering for losing your loved ones, physical pain and so on. — Antinatalist

So you actually admit that you do want Humans to disappear. You just try to present it like a "good", "unselfish", "moral" thing. Sorry but there is no way to accept that. It is totally out of my logic.

But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones — Antinatalist

Totally disagree.

My point of view is that preventing harm is a higher value than bringing happiness. — Antinatalist

Your point of view ends with the conclusion : that preventing harm is a higher value than life itself at the very end!! And this is something that my Logic fails to follow. It just stops being logic, for me at least.

Anyway as to sum up, cause I think I played almost all my "cards" here and I don't have anything else to add.

I always respect all kind of opinions,even if I don't agree. I respect antinatalists too. But for me as I mentioned to another post this issue can never be a matter of right or wrong! That base is absolutely false for me. It is 100% a simple matter of choice.

Humans just find another reason to practice their favorite "hobby". Split into groups and fight! Making an issue out of nowhere,like in many other cases. Cause they always feel that their choice only is the right one and everyone should do as they do.
That's all for me.

imagine all the world's women decide they don't want to have kids. You think it is ok to rape them? — Bartricks

Your mind is still stuck in the "rape" thing. I already answered you that no its not right at all. And I also mentioned you that is totally irrational to compare a living woman's choice(which she is entitled to have and to express it), with an unborn, non existing creature "potential choice".

If you find them similar and same cases,i don't have anything more to say.

Let´s use "Humanism" I suppose the way you use it (you can correct me if your view is different). It is something good. Something unselfish, peace-loving, something which reach for love and justice.

On that perspective I find antinatalism very humanistic point of view. — Antinatalist

I used the word humanism here as to describe "human species".People.
How you find antinatalism humanistic(with the way you defined it) since the ultimate result of your theory would be a totally disappearance of humans? An end to human nature?? I really can't understand this.
Doesn't that imply that you find human creatures unworthy of living? Is this a different kind of "love" for humans and I m the only one who doesn't get it? (maybe I am, don't know).

Answer me something that I was always curious about antinatalists. I asked the same to Bartricks also.

Let's suppose that the best scenario for you happen. And all people adopt your theory. So at the end your final claim is that humanity should stop existing right?? That no more kids, no more humans.
You find that rational?? It was always one of the main reasons I never could understand that kind of Logic! You find logical humanity to end cause we just "can't ask" an unborn, NonExisting creature?? Really that sounds rational to you??Just asking, really.

And at the end since your final conclusion is that. Then why you call yourselves antinatalists and not anti humanists?? It would be a more honest name, imo at least.

That way both natalists and antinatalists will have nothing to complain about as there's enough for everybody - happy, content lives are possible. — TheMadFool

What you mention it creates a "bridge" between them indeed. Seems like that at least.

Time is running out for us - either we declare a moratorium on birthing or we all die of starvation, quite possibly some other complication of overpopulation will do us in. — TheMadFool

That's a really really interesting view. And it deserves another thread on its own. Big one.

But I think at this one we examine the "basic theory of antinatalism" under "normal" circumstances. That is no starvation threat (for now) at least.
I think we try to compare 2 different types of thinking .2 different "theories". And as to do that fairly, we should examine them under the exact same circumstances. If we want a fair outcome out of this discussion. Imo at least.

But what you mentioned is really interesting and almost for sure a question that humanity will be forced to face in future.

If you weigh harming and helping in the same way, then you would think the person who doesn't donate is just as bad as the person who steals. — khaled

But we are talking about "potential" harming. It's not that the parents think that the kid will suffer for sure, so they still have them! Some have happy lives and they think "oh let's bring into that party someone else also as to enjoy it like me!". Why that decision to be characterized as wrong. Sorry I can't accept it simply.

Back to our issue again. Even if I accept what you are saying about harm and happiness (which sorry I can't but anyway). Why should we always assume that having a child will bring harm to it?? Or more harm than happiness to it?? Why we even start from that assumption?? I can't understand.

What If a kid has an excellent life, full of happiness and the only harm he faces is his death at the end! Would you count again in that cases, harm and happiness with the same way?? If you were an unborn kid and had the "option" what would you choose? I would choose "yes" I ensure you.

But I'm not an antinatalist.... You know, just because I don't agree with shope on everything doesn't mean I disagree with everything either.... — khaled

It sounds fair.

Clearly. So you think if it is impossible to get someone's consent to do x, then it's ok to do it? — Bartricks

It's the same as "not to do it" since you can never be sure about his "answer".For me, It just doesn't matter at all, since he has absolutely no say on that.

Okay: so if Tim wants to rape Jane - so, he wants to have sex with her without her consent - then you think it is okay for him to do it? After all, it is impossible for Jane to consent to be raped, isn't it? If she consents, it is not rape. So, by your logic, as long as you want to rape someone, it is okay for you to rape as rape can't be consented to. — Bartricks

Come on, come on. Please. What kind of concept is that?? No of course it's not my logic that thing. Jane is already alive so she has the option to accept or deny sex with Tim. If she denies then no Tim has absolutely no right to do so!
How you compare the choice of a living person (Jane) with the no-option of an unborn kid??? You find them similar? They are completely different cases.

YTou can't consent to be deceived. Hence deception is default wrong. All I am doing is noticing that this applies to procreative acts. It really isn't hard to understand, so I don't understand why you don't understand it. — Bartricks

You see, that's where we disagree. You can't consent to be born so you say it is wrong.
I say that, since you have absolutely no way to consent or not, then it simply doesn't matter at all! You are a "0" when your parents decide to have you. "0" has no way to choose. So the choice is up to the ones who are already alive. Parents. They decide if they want to make a "0" into something! It doesn't make it wrong at all in eyes.

So imagine you don't know whether I want to take heroin or not. You're just not sure, though you do know that it is highly addictive. You just inject me with some. That's wrong, yes? Really wrong. And it's really wrong even if - as is likely - I then find myself enjoying it and get addicted. Yes? — Bartricks

Your example is the same as the previous. You compare already living creatures with the ability of choice. With non existence "creatures". For me it's like comparing apples with oranges. Sorry I can't accept that.

Maybe they exist in some other realm, maybe they don't — Bartricks

If you support that unborn kids exist "somewhere else" already then it changes the whole discussion. Then your claims might have some validity.
But for me they don't exist anywhere else at all. It's simply "0",nothing.
And you can't ask from a " 0" permission for something. It's purely impossible.

And I repeat to you than when you decide not to have a kid, you already do something without his "consent" also. You decide a" no" answer for it. You say kid didn't give you the permission to have it, so you shouldn't. Well he didn't give you the "permission" not to have it also. Right? How is that different??.

It imposes a lifetime here on someone else without their consent; it creates considerable undeserved suffering and does not promote deserved pleasure; and those who perform such acts typically have a whole range of morally bad motives for doing so. — Bartricks

But since you can never have an consent on that why we even talk about it? I can't understand really. We discuss about an impossible scenario. But anyway let me get into your way of thinking.

Are you sure that the "answer" from the "unborn" child would be "no"?? How can you know that? As to follow you down to that road, even if I don't want to.
Cause when you decide not to have kids for that reason. You already assume a " no" answer from the kid!

And you keep talking about suffering and suffering. As if that's only what exists on life. As if life is a earth hell or something. No it isn't. There is plenty of suffering yes, but plenty of happiness also. You can never measure exactly this things. It's impossible.

Which is why it would be immoral to procreate even if they did consent, for the act will still make someone else do something significant without their consent: live a whole lifetime here. — Bartricks

Live a whole lifetime here. And you present it like "welcome to life freak show". You make life seems like an unbearable torture all the time.

So for you, If everyone followed your advice. Humans would stop existing right? You are ok with that I suppose? That's the right thing at the end!? To make our species disappear since "unborn kids" don't give us the "permission" to bring them to life?
That's more than antinatalist. That's anti humanist then!

So is quite understandable that many people, who suffer and are willing to die, don´t make suicide. — Antinatalist

These cases exist indeed. But many others prefer to go on living even if they suffer cause they still think life is better. Plus when one suffers still he has hope that things will get better and he will overcome it. His hope for happier days is much stronger even from the actual suffering.

There are even cases among the ones you mentioned,that people just find excuses to religion and grief of their loved ones cause at the very bottom they don't want to die at all!

How is it not right sometimes and also not a matter of right and wrong? — khaled

Cause we talk about having kids or not in general. And not in specific cases. When you already know that your kid will face illness for sure , is it the same when you just assume that your kid might face suffering in its life?

First case's outcome is already known. So when you decide to make a kid and you already know that it will suffer of course it is wrong to have it. But that has nothing to do with the second case.
I see no contradiction here.

Is someone who can afford to give 100 dollars to charity but chooses not to as bad as someone who steals 100 dollars?

Because that seems like it’d follow if you believe that bringing about happiness is as important as not harming. I’m not quite made up on the issue but I do think they’re comparable. — khaled

I don't think that this example is similar to the case here. It's like you already assume that "stealing" (wrong) is the "having kid" case. So you lead the conclusion to your preference already.
Why then you don't consider as depriving happiness from an unborn kid a bad thing also?

I really can't understand how you and schopenhauer measure harm and happiness and you decide that harm counts more.

Okay, so all surveys count for nothing. You should contact universities and tell their researchers to stop[ doing them. — Bartricks

That's what you understood from what I wrote??? Pfffff..

Goodness, how silly you are. No wonder you think having kids is morally fine. — Bartricks

Yeah I know. You didn't have kids. So you belong to "clever". I'm sure you have a research for that too.

You fail to understand simply logical things. I told you that these kind of researches can never be valid and you talk about witnesses and green cup shit.
You insist that having kids is wrong and you don't accept that it is a matter of choice simply. So what else to discuss with you? You rape logic.
Happiness can never be measured by one factor only (having kids or not). It's pure stupidity if you think that. Nothing else to say.

someone in utter pain isn't going to necessarily be able to wave such things away.. One has to eat.. etc. Joke assume easy-to-deal-with and light. Surely, someone must find ways to live in the word, lest they die (they must "deal with" inescapably lest they die by starvation). Surely, contingent, harmful events might happen to someone as well. Structural and contingent harms happen..That's no joke. — schopenhauer1

Why you think that a person who suffers (and there might be probably billions as we are talking) don't kill himself?? Cause they STILL answer "yes" to life. Life to most people is much more preferable than "nothing","0", even if they suffer!

This isn't the case with happiness-bringing. — schopenhauer1

It is the exact same for me!
We will never agree on that. Let's face it. It's OK. Not saying that I m surely right and you are wrong. We just think different on that.

life is known to be the condition for which harms take place (obviously). — schopenhauer1

Now I get why you and me disagree then. I think you just mentioned the "root" here.
For me that's ONLY how humans has made life seem. And how they think about it.
My cosmo theory is very different than yours. Life is a joke! Even a bad joke is nothing more than a joke!
And now your nickname makes more sense to me. No offense here, just telling you what I exactly thought when I read that.

Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter. No harm seems to be more important than no happy. — schopenhauer1

But why?? Why seems like that?! And as you keep writing "seems!"." Seems" means "not sure" also. Anyway we keep repeating the same things here.

"What makes suffering so bad compared to the non-existent good"? That is where axiologies basically stop. — schopenhauer1

That's exactly my question.
And since "axiologies stop" , that's another evidence that you can never be sure about the harm-good assumption you make.

One situation brings an injustice (born with no "no option" excepting the very difficult prospect of slow suicide through passive starvation/depredation or faster means of suicide) and one situation simply doesn't (not having the child). — schopenhauer1

But all these assumptions end up supposing that a child will have a life of suffer. What if a child mends to live a great life full of happiness.My decision not to have it, how you say that it brings just?? Since you deprive a "0" to live a great life before returning to "0".Is that a good thing?? And If I was an unborn child and had the" option" I would vote "hell yes!".

You say since we can't ask the child the fair thing is not to have it! That already includes the hypothesis that the child will answer "no"!
So assuming" no " is fine but assuming" yes" is bad and unethical??

Anyway I repeat to you that the "unjust" argument is solved for me with the suicide option. And if Antinatalists want also just for parents well they have it too!Also the parent that "shouldn't have the kid" gets "punished" having to suffer the loss of his kid for the rest of his life.

Harm that is prevented seems asymmetrical to good that is prevented. If a harm is avoided (that could have happened), is this not a good thing? If good was prevented, it would only be bad if someone was there to exist to be deprived of it.. An actual person existing doesn't seem to affect the goodness of a possible harm that was prevented though. That seems always good, no matter what. It's good as a state of affairs, whereas the state of affairs of "no good happening" seems to only matter in the relative sense of a person needing to be deprived of it to begin with — schopenhauer1

Let's agree we disagree on that. I really can't understand why you make that distinction. I understand your arguments but really I can't accept them. Why you find that asymmetry and the way you "measure" it, I can't agree on that. So better to stop arguing about that,i think,and move on.

That's a fallacy.. What if you never wanted to have the option be to live life or do the generally painful, scary thing of killing yourself? — schopenhauer1

My point is that is totally useless, imo at least, to discuss issues that can never happen. You simply can't decide for life. It is given to you. The decision isn't made by us. At least I find it fair that you were given the option to end it. For me it balances the non asking life.

Harm was prevented which was good. Good was prevented, but how is that bad or good if there's no one there to care? There seems to be an asymmetry where prevented bad that could have happened is good. Prevented good, not so much a bad thing (or good). — schopenhauer1

Good that was prevented is bad. You can't claim that preventing harm is good but preventing good then who cares?Either you will say that prevented harm also who cares.. Or preventing good is bad. You can't have it all.

Since when is it that when we can’t ask for consent, we assume it is given? — khaled

Ask how??? To an unborn kid? What are you talking about? No you can't ask. Simply as that. If you know a way to ask for an unborn child for permission then please enlighten us all. So yes it's totally parents decision. He/she is the creator either you like it or not.

Let’s assume that a couple has hidden genes that would result in their child having a terrible illness. We’re talking, missing eyes, broken limbs, broken organs, etc. Do you think it’s fine for that couple to have that kid?

The idea that having kids is always fine at all times is silly, even to non antinatalists — khaled

The only silly thing here is your argument. Who talked about such cases as you mention? Of course not it isn't right. When you know that your kid will face serious illness, it's not right at all to have it.But we don't talk about that cases obviously. Pfffff...

But to whom does that matter? Certainly, not the non-existent being, as that makes no sense — schopenhauer1

That could be the same for 1 too. Don't you think?

So there is some asymmetry here between 1 and 2 where 1 seems waited as more important to consider than 2 — schopenhauer1

But why 1 is more important than 2?

In general I get your point but for me that question can never be valid since it has no practical use. It can never happen so what to discuss about??

Life is given to all of us without asking. But the "fair" thing for that is that you can also choose to end it whenever you want. It would be totally unfair only if you couldn't.

Just do some research. The childfree are happier.

You seem to be misusing the word 'logical'. — Bartricks

There could be no valid research as to measure that.Even if you could ask all people on earth and the majority told you they are happier, how can you be sure that they would tell the truth?. So stop that research thing.

It is simply impossible to defend that view. Some are happy with kids, others without.
It is totally a matter of choice and it depends inclusively on each person's way of living.
Where exactly is the misuse on logic here??

We are also cleverer. — Bartricks

Really?? No further comment...

For instance, this is a philosophy forum. How many of the greats had kids? Not many. — Bartricks

Once again. So what? That is a proof of having a kid is wrong?? No way.

I do not understand your point. You say having kids is a choice. Yes, so? I am arguing that it is a choice one ought not to make. And there are a bundle of reasons for thinking this. — Bartricks

As there are bundle of reasons as to have kids. So? You didn't have kids. Perfectly fine. Another wanted to have kids cause that would made him happy. Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right??
My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong.

So, do you think it is ok to impose something very considerable on another person without their consent? — Bartricks

That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. Simply as that.

What do the childfree have more of? Money and time. What do they have less of? Responsibility. So, more money and time. Fewer responsibilities. More money. More time. Fewer responsibilities. Hmm. It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know! — Bartricks

These could never be logical evidence of happier people. For example, you forget to mention the joy that kids bring to someone's life.Joy that people with no kids are deprived of. And you present "responsibility" as a misery factor, which isn't necessary at all.
As you can't also support of course that Antinatalists are miserable.

For me it cannot be a happiness measurement if someone has kids or not. It logically fails. Since happiness depends on many other factors and first and most important from the person himself and what he wants in his life.

Having kids or not it is a matter of choice simply. There is no right or wrong in these things. I never understood why someone to be considered unethical if he wants kids or either miserable if he doesn't.

Always seemed to me like just another issue(as many others) that people create problems and conflicts out of nowhere. Just as to split into "groups" and "fight".

Wrong or not. Suicide is still a human right.

there's something about biology that defies an explication of it in terms of chemistry. In other words, biology has its own set of features that are unique to its own level of complexity, these features having their own rules i.e. the biological world, although based on chemical reactions, is sufficiently distinct to deserve separate treatment. — TheMadFool

Ok now I got what you mean. The way that these two fields are combined together though and create a "unity" is a real mystery. Don't know if it would be better as to study them separately than consider them as a constant interaction.
I don't think I m capable of proposing something since I lack of deep knowledge into these matters.

A similar logic applies to consciousness; it's biological foundations is an open secret but it's not just biology as we think it is. Love, though it can be said to boil down to the act of coitus, also transcends it; love exists, as a distinct entity, at the level of human relationships and should be studied within that context — TheMadFool

I always considered the mystery of consciousness and how it works similar with emotions. I have the feeling that they function in the same inseparable way,and the day we solve the one mystery automatically will be solved the other too.
But as I wrote above, it is nothing more than a personal sensation that I have. So I would never be able to support it with sufficient arguments.

Is, for instance, love just a biochemical reaction geared towards evolutionary success? Is the beauty and the sweetness of a flower simply meant to incite insects so that they can do the "dirty work" of cross-pollination? — TheMadFool

Well yes, imo emotion of love was developed through and for evolution purposes also. As all human emotions.

I would like to, if possible that is, make a distinction between different levels of organization of matter and energy i.e. even though it's possible to reduce mind and everything it does to biology, biology to chemistry, and so on, we should still treat these various levels as unique in and of themselves, possessing their own special, level-specific, content and dynamics. Thus, something like love needs to be studied in the world it's a part of (supra-biological emotions) and what's to avoided are attempts to explain them resorting to more basic concepts such as chemistry and physics. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure I fully got this but seems interesting. How you mean it when you say "different levels of organization of matter and energy"?
And when you say" various levels" you mean about biology and chemistry or something else??
You also say love should be studied as "supra biological emotion". In what way this is different from "simple" biological emotions?

No, it's just too rare to call having kids in that scenario anything less than irresponsibility. — khaled

Tell that to all scientists and people with happy lives that got raised by poor families. Throughout history might be billions probably . Don't seem so rare. Blame their "irresponsible" parents for that.

You can't magically love people so much they stop being hungry — khaled

Better to live with much love and little food than with little love and much food.

It doesn't target any specific race, so it isn't. — khaled

Being Racist is not only about races obviously. It targets on the group of poor people. So yes it is.

Anyways, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, bye. — khaled

With that attitude for sure no. We agree on that. Bye.

Having a child is an egoist thing. Not having is also,but for different reasons.
So you also support that poor people shouldn't have kids?
Poor people should be deprived of that joy in their lives? Kids from poor families can't live happily? Only rich family's kids? Kids need love way much more than money. If a poor guy loves his kids he will do whatever to raise them happily. Even with little money. Why you connect happiness with money?

I don't think that this is your intention but poor people shouldn't have kids sounds kind of racist to me.

The issue that was discussed was if humans are monogamous. I supported my opinion that aren't with a empirical example. Which I always find the strongest ones in such cases.

You responded trying to imply that it was an offending comment for women. Which was not the case. And now once again you don't say anything about the actual point of the matter and if and to what exactly you disagree (or not who knows).

Just a clever - ish line and that's it. So it's obvious that you are just making a show again.
Noticed you do that many times with others too. Writing one or two lines with no arguments at all .
Well it won't be the case with me though.First you will get the proper answers and then you are free to do as you wish. Sorry.

Then you should be the first to know that. You would prefer not to have been born then? Seems to me that you connect poverty with misery. But that's not right at all imo. Poor people can be happy.Rich people can be miserable also.

At the end as you escaped from poverty others might hope the same too.If I am a poor guy but I believe that I will make it and escape, why should I abandon hope or even the joy that a kid will bring in my life??

Help raise some other poor parent's impoverished babies instead of breeding more misery. — 180 Proof

No I don't want to. I want to have my own kids and raise them with no misery at all. Why should I help others kid and deprive myself from the joy of having my own kids just because I m poor?
At the end how many genius scientists have grown up from poor parents and make it afterwards? Should their parents never have them?

Your analysis is that of an adolescent — Banno

You said nothing about it though. At what exactly you disagree? That humans aren't monogamous creatures or what??

You commented saying nothing about my "analysis" but only as to point a racist matter that it didn't exist. I clarified it(even if it was crystal clear from the beginning) and now you make another post as to underestimate my analysis as adolescent-ish.

Something that you actually disagree with? Or just making a show here?

So what if you never get out of poverty? Why should that be a "stop" for having kids? If I am poor but I wanna have kids and I love them, would that be a bad thing? ​Even if they grow up in a poor environment but with much love is that bad for them?

They might turn into become great people and growing up in poverty at the end to become an "advantage" for them, cause afterwards they will appreciate more other things which are more essential in life than money.

cannot financially afford to feed cloth shelter & educate them — 180 Proof

So poor people shouldn't have children?

That's a very crude analysis. Not all naked women are fuck-worthy; and no all naked women want to get fucked by you. You talk as if she had no say in it, and as if there were no other qualifications. — Banno

Not crude at all. You turn the point into a matter that doesn't exist, cause you just find "fuck" word too shocking for you obviously. Who said that she would have no say? Obviously I mean that as to get naked in front of you she would want it also. And obviously you would find her attractive as to have erection. Didn't expect that I would have to clarify such a simple thing.

It could also be the same with a woman to whom Brad Pitt would be naked in front of her. Don't turn it into a race matter cause has nothing to do with that. I talk about monogamy in both sexes. Not as a privilege of men.

But that's part and parcel of this intellectually and emotionally numb thread — Banno

I care to make my point clear. Not scared at all to use "low quality" or "bad" words for that. There are no bad words at all for me, only bad meanings.

Well no I believe that love is a true emotion. But we humans have made many myths and fairy tales about what is "meant to be" and its origin.
In partnership we have combined it with monogamy. Which is wrong for me. These are two different things. Can't I love someone but at the same time want to have sex with others too? I don't see any contradiction to that.

In some cases, as you mention, it is also used to sugar-coat the two-baked-beast. But it's not always the case.
Saying that more or less is two sides of the same coin meant that, if we plant a seed into a couple. That seed would also need plenty of "sex water" also as to grow up and turn into love. There are exceptions of course but in most cases it does need sex.

I think also that, more or less, is two sides of the same coin. When we speak about partner's love of course.

A big majority of bird species live monogamously. It's also displayed in monkeys and apes. Gibbons are a notable example. Many canines have a tendency towards monogamy. Beavers are another prime showcase for sticking with a partner for life. — Hermeticus

Even if they are, humans aren't. These are exceptions. Humans put mental effort as to be monogamous. It doesn't come natural to them. If a married man see a naked woman he will have an erection. He will have to try to think and put hard effort as to convince himself not to fuck her. It won't come natural to him.

Most of us are full of shit. Don't believe the hype. — Srap Tasmaner

Exactly.

For me love has its root in Ego.The way that it is socially described as a pure "altruistic" emotion, is nothing more than another human myth.

We are animals with a high rate of infidelity I would struggle to believe we are indeed as monogamous — Benj96

As you said we are animals. What kind of animal is monogamous?? We aren't monogamous at all. Nature haven't programmed us that way. Monogamy is just a social compromise we make as to feed our Ego and to feel that we "own" the other person.And not anyone else is allowed to fuck it! Of course love exists but has nothing to do with monogamy.

The convention of marriage is very much a legal and political thing regarding possession and responsibility towards children. — Benj96

I would add the "possession" of our partner too. Not just kids.
You ask at the end ".. the desire to settle down?". For me seems more like the "desire to kill our fear of being alone".