I have a replica targe (traditional Scottish shield) and a replica broad sword that I can hardly lift. So you Americans with your .22 and your 12 gauge's will probably defeat me in a neighbourhood dispute, unless I do a sneaky attack, at night, when all your church going, republican supporting neighbours are sleeping :chin: :lol: Nah, that would be dishonourable!

Writer's block :scream: I am sure you will break though with a ground-breaking, original, eureka moment .... now! or .......... now! ....... or .......... maybe later!

All the same, though, "better brain than brawn". The heroic dead inspire a lot more death, and the Klingons will sing many ugly songs.... but they don't change. Nobody likes Cassandra, anyway; she just doesn't want us to have that nice big horse. — Vera Mont

America should have offered the presidency to Carl Sagan when he was alive.
How about Sean Carroll or Brian Greene? Cosmologists/leading edge physicists would make the best presidents of America imo.

I just checked the wiki page … it appears you chose to read what suited you and ignored the rest. On this subject I am sure I know more than you given that you literally stated some glaring untruths/assumptions based on some weird selective reading from a wiki page. — I like sushi

Which part are you assuming I ignored? Demonstrate that you know more than I about history. You may know more about Mr Cochrane but we all have our areas of depth of historical knowledge based on individual interest.

“Dilute horrors” ? What are you talking about? Whole civilisations literally collapsed before a gun was fired … I call that horrific don’t you? — I like sushi

Of course, its horrific, a tsunami is horrific as is an earthquake if you are nearby when it happens. But as I already pointed out to you, do the historical death tolls due to disease dilute the responsibility the historical Spaniards, Portuguese, French, British etc have for their treatment of indigenous first nation peoples?

Who is making assumptions? Oh er … archeologists and historians not people who read selective wiki entries to fit into their sense of knowledge. — I like sushi

Now you are just typing in tantrum mode.

My entire point was you wrongly attributed aggressive invading Europeans as the primary mover in the downfall of the American peoples and their civilisations. — I like sushi

I still do maintain that is the case. Most civilisations have historically recovered from disease. Native Americans and indigenous tribes still exist, despite the ravages of disease and the actions of invaders. They just don't have the same control over the land and its resources as they used to, and that fact has a lot more to do with the actions of the invaders rather than disease. If no deaths were caused within native populations due to disease, then they would still have been almost destroyed due to the greed and short sightedness of their invaders.

The additional point was that you clearly know next to nothing about Cochrane and his contributions in South America. — I like sushi

You probably do know more about him than I do. I have studied the Napoleonic wars in some detail and had read a little about Cochrane as an English naval commander. I probably know a lot more about the Napoleonic wars than you do, but really? WHO CARES!

The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then? — Tzeentch

No the offspring shall help to continue the species and the parent's legacy.

You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.
All morality is a human construct.
So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Fogged logic. My main point is that life started in the universe without consent or permission and that is the evidence that defeats your moral dilemma. It has no relevance to the existence of life in this universe or its continuation.

No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.
You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there. — Tzeentch

So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? I would suggest you start there and then move towards the well-being and sustaining of the life which arrived in the universe regardless of permission or consent from any source.

This is not a cause-effect relationship. The rebellious slaves were wasted manpower. That's what I don't support. — Vera Mont

I disagree. Rome did not exist in a bubble. The actions and atrocities committed by its forces were widely reported at the time, probably quite slowly but it seems a given that their actions would be reported by those who witnessed them or took part in them at the time.

John Brown made his point in the church, not at Harper's Ferry; his death did not precipitate the insane civil war — Vera Mont

In his personal memoirs, Ulysses S Grant writes about the fact that his father and uncle worked for John Browns father in the tannery he owned in Maysville Kentucky. He writes:
"I have often heard my father speak of John Brown, particularly since the events at Harpers ferry. ................................................... It was certainly the act of an insane man to attempt the invasion of the South, and the overthrow of slavery, with less than 20 men."
Browns story and actions had a very definite effect on those who were against the policy of slavery used by the South and was an influence on the direction towards the civil war.

One is an example. The next four are heroic. The thousand(s) after that are simply wasted, like the people at Masada. Their death does not alter the course of history. — Vera Mont

Well, I understand and have some common ground with your pointing finger towards the 'what a waste of peoples lives' idea but I do think that many of these sacrifices where not in vain. The Jewish people revere those who died at Masada to this day and probably will forever more.

Yes, and I'M SORRY I SAID THAT! Wasn't intended as combative. I never said I was miserable; I commented only that I can't affect current politics, either by voting or fighting. It wouldn't be any different if I moved to an orange, red or even green riding; it might feel cozy, but we'd be just as outnumbered. It's a downward turn of the wheel, that's all. — Vera Mont

Ok, if that's how you feel about it. If you don't want to be a political activist then all you can do is vote, just like your angry friend did. BUT keep writing and shove that 12 gauge into the basement somewhere!

You need to read up on your history — I like sushi

Are you not assuming you know more about history than I do?
What assumptions are you making?

As soon as a reasonable number of people were infected it led to collapse of civilisations in the Americas without ANY hostile intention on the part of those landing there. — I like sushi

But they did have hostile intentions along with any ailments they brought with them. The British and the French did the same to the native peoples of North America and Canada. More natives have died due to disease that war, but this is true in all of human history. Many more people have died of influenza variants and the various plagues in history than the total number killed in all wars ever. So does that mean we can dilute the horrors of war because disease has killed more people?
Is the human immorality of war more forgivable because you cannot judge disease as inherently immoral?

There is evidence for this along the Amazon where it was reported there were large kingdoms by explorers. Upon returning later no one found these mythical kingdoms … because everyone died of disease. Modern archeology has shed light on this. — I like sushi

Now who is making historical assumptions. How do you or they know how many died and how many survived and abandoned the place because so many died? Petra, Uruk, Ur and hundreds of other city state remains exist today and some have been fully excavated.
There was a myriad of reasons reported as to why such early settlements were eventually abandoned, disease was not the only reason.

Based on common understanding of human psychology.
But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you. — Tzeentch

You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. I did not suggest that a couple looks into each other's eyes and discuss having children to ensure that the human race survives but they do exchange such comments as 'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' Especially in amongst the rich dynastic families or in the families of celebrity etc. But it happens in almost every family. It is the concept of legacy which just seems unable to penetrate through your fog. Even though the historical evidence for it is irrefutable. This is synonymous with the idea of reproducing to ensure the survival of the species as the end result of the compulsion to pass on legacy has the exact same result.

Why would I have to reject morality altogether?
— universeness
It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Based on what logic? Try actually answering a question instead of just responding with obvious and tedious obfuscations.

Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project? — Tzeentch

Your attempt to ignore legacy just because it's an inconvenient fact that defeats your antinatalist viewpoint is pernicious.

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
— universeness

A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said. — Tzeentch

The truth hurts you?

Lord Thomas Cochrane — I like sushi

I am more familiar with the efforts of Simon Bolivar in ridding South America of foreign invaders, but I have heard of Cochrane, but considered him more as a mercenary whose main motivation was wealth acquisition rather than being driven by a moral imperative to deliver the indigenous peoples of South America from the Spanish and Portuguese. A quick wiki reminder confirmed he also fought for the Greeks and was convicted of fraudulent activity on the stock exchange. Many such 'English Lords of the British Empire,' were global mercenaries in search of fame and fortune but I personally consider all such character's nefarious individuals who warrant no historical respect.

I was just stating a fact about what happened to the indigenous peoples of the americas. To equate the spread of disease with genocide is silly. It is estimated that over 90% of the population died due to the ravages of disease … such is NOT genocide. — I like sushi

Well, I appreciate what you mean but there is a valid argument that if the Portuguese and the Spanish were not as brutal as they proved to be, then they would not have inadvertently introduced these diseases at a time when the civilisations of South America were unable to defend against them.
Would it not have been much better, if the Portuguese and the Spanish had worked with and traded with the native tribes instead of murdering them. Perhaps they could have even helped them combat the deadly diseases they introduced them to. I agree that they did not intend to introduce their diseases to the 2000 tribes of Brazil but it was their murderous activity that increased the rate and extent of the spread. I think that it's fair to lay some of the blame of the resultant genocide at the door of the Portuguese. At least more so, than it is valid to lay the blame for Covid at the door of the Chinese.
It is also very important not to minimise the number of indigenous people that such invaders did personally, physically slaughter.

You told me to move, after I said my vote doesn't count here. I won't, of course, and so what? My neighbours and I don't talk politics; the flak is all virtual, and avoidable. — Vera Mont

I didn't TELL YOU to move, I suggested you move if you are miserable where you are, but you seem to have backtracked on that original claim, you did not originally suggest that all the flak you were receiving was virtual and avoidable. BUT only if you dont talk about one of the most important subjects in life with your neighbours, politics. I could not do that.

One, or a half dozen martyrs are noticed, get put on placards and banners, inspire the troops. But once the revolution has been put down, why line the highway with crucified rebels? I'm opposed in principle to waste. — Vera Mont

I do not support the luddite imperative as I don't see new tech in quite the same way they did, but they are certainly remembered, as is John Brown. He certainly did not fail as the American civil war delivered what he wanted. His death served his purpose and goal, he therefore completely succeeded.
After Spartacus was defeated, the Romans are reported to have lined the Appin way with crucified rebels, yes, but their empire was destroyed by those who were akin in culture and tradition to those crucified ex-slaves. After his defeat, the Scottish hero William Wallace was hung, drawn, quartered and the 4 quarters of his body were sent back to Scotland. This had the opposite effect to what was intended as 9 years later, the Scots kicked the English out and became an independent nation again.
The sacrifice of Spartacus and William Wallace were not wasteful as both got exactly what they fought for in the end.

You don't have to politically self-flagellate. Living a satisfactory life yourself need not clash irreconcilably with fighting the good fight. For me, it would depend on how deep that 'political naivety' was and how many were incurably infected with it. I could not stop calling it out so I would not thrive in your neighbourhood, as you describe it, unless I did have significant support.
It would be like living in a community which was populated by > 90% diehard capitalists. I think I would move if I could, as the amount of flack would be just too much and too often.

Why do you think a merging of all the peoples of Europe into one nation would be akin to something like Orwell's 1984? Why do you suggest it would employ the downing street number 10 or the Scottish imagery you posted?

Well, I live in a small seaside town and there are as many here who I have common political, social and economic ground with. Perhaps even a majority. If I go out for an evening locally and the group I am in, interacts with another group, we normally are similarly minded, not always but enough for me to be contented living here. If that was not the case, I would be seeking out a new place to dwell.
I will not stay in lonely street at the heartbreak hotel.

Sounds like you should find a community with viewpoints closer to your own and move there, if you can.
It sounds like you live in and around something which I would consider a pressing enemy camp.

:wink: :up:

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence?

Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.
If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question? — Tzeentch

You think in extremes! Why would I have to reject morality altogether? What utter nonsense!

Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions. — Tzeentch

I typed the word intent YOU decided that was synonomous with the term 'good intentions.' You further evidence your tendency to invent and attempt to misrepresent and misdirect when you are frustrated that you have no valid response.

Necessary, why? To whom?
Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me. — Tzeentch

Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy.

The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.
I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall. — Tzeentch

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.

Seems like your friend employed bad tactics. Writing books seems like a better approach than a 12 gauge and a rusty dump truck.

It's not the winning Vera, it's the helping out and the adding your voice and the support in any way you can. Writing often offers a powerful pen, which is indeed often far mightier than a sword or a 12 gauge.
Good for you, that incoming flak has not cowed you completely. You should continue to relish the conflict if you know your cause is just! I just need you to be in support of us humanist/socialist/democrats.
If you do not support such then I am always willing to discuss the tenets with you if you are willing and with no malice aforethought.

Do you think a tsunami, or an earthquake is an immoral imposition?

It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do. — Tzeentch

I accept your opinion that I have failed to provide such for you, and I have so far been unable to wipe the antinatalism fog from your mind. You claim it is due to the fact that my points towards you are inconsistent but you have not demosntrated where that inconsistency exists. I have consistently made the same points to you.
1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival.
2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human constructed moral crisis you may personally be having.
3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does.
4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering.
These are some of my consistent points, where is this inconsistency you are complaining about.
I accept you dont find my 4 points above compelling reasons for you to abandon your antinatalist stance but hey ho, such is life. Some folks just prefer their misery to finding the strength to join us optimists.
Or they just can't conquer their pride! They can't admit they have been so wrong for so long.

Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.
Why don't you start with coming up for a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case? — Tzeentch

I already have.
1. Life happened (was imposed if you prefer).
2. Some life became intelligent life.
3. Intelligent life is able to ask questions.
4. To understand the what, how and why of the universe, life that is self-aware and has intent and can ask questions is necessary.
5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers is necessary.
6. A universe with no life has no purpose.
7. IF you accept 1 to 6 then imposing life on the universe is moral, If you don't accept 1 to 6 then you are probably an antinatalist who bizarrely does not wish to be an existent who can choose to label themselves an antinatalist. Antinatalism is self-defeating in every way you posit it.

I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation. — Tzeentch

You are not an honest interlocuter. You have preached antinatalism, as you have stated that it's the only logical solution to the 'common moral dilemma,' of immoral imposition through procreation. It's preaching because you have no evidence. My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. Where is this inconsistency you claim is forcing you to 'wait for an explanation?'
You are simply refusing to accept any explanation you are offered in the same way a convinced theist will never accept there is no god or supernatural woo woo.

and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer — Benj96

:lol: Welcome brother, to those of us who will 'call out the BS of people.' :flower: :flower: :flower:

This won't do.
There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence. — Tzeentch

I have already asked you this before. Do you consider a universe without intent to start life but life started through happenstance to be immoral? If your answer is yes, then you are suggesting the universe had intent, as intent is a fundamental aspect of morality. If your answer is no, then you accept that this happenstance is beyond the jurisdiction of any notion of human morality. It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.'

"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.
You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.
It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently. — Tzeentch

A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. Benevolent imposition is moral in the human world, such as preventing someone from fighting or imposing to break up a fight. If you would stand by and watch then, imo, YOU are immoral.
Imposition, which is immoral, can only be judged based on established moral guidelines, and by those involved on a case-by-case basis. I might impose suffering to remove an impaled limb to free a person, depending on the situation. I may have children to continue the experience of life and living. YOU have no right or power to judge me immoral as such a judgement would itself be immoral as you are not supported by any universal fact, BUT I AM, the fact that life started in this universe WITHOUT ANY PERMISSION OR CONSENT. You are the inconsistent special pleader with no answer to the natural happenstance of life creation. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

I am pro species survival.
— universeness
Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.
Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race? — Tzeentch

I do have power over the survival of my species, we all do, as we can reproduce! That's the whole point!
I don't need to be around to witness it, my like being around to witness it, is absolutely good enough for me. Only a narcissist or sociopath would deny life a future just because they themselves must die and enter oblivion. Yes, everyday people do exactly that, as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection.

I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation — Tzeentch

Why are you preaching antinatalism then? As a solution to what? You claim you have identified a moral crisis and you then suggest that you are not suggesting any solution, so why are you pushing the antinatalist nonsense? I have explained my position to you quite clearly, its simply you who (panto style), claims I have not. So, to reflect back to you in equal panto style, your position on antinatalism is the position that 'just won't do.'

It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic. — Tzeentch

There is no 'special case of logic' involved or required, that's just another fake claim you make.
Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. Evolution and natural selection has demonstrated the reproduction system as the means by which a species may continue to exist whether or not that reproduction is asexual or sexual.
These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. Antinatalists may make as many appeals to their own conflated notions of human morality as they like. You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads.
I am not a pronatalist, I don't think such a term has much important meaning behind it. Any intelligent person understands the danger of over population. I am pro species survival. I am for continuing the human species, as I know that we give a significance and purpose to the universe that it would not have if we (or our like,) did not exist. A significance which is so fundamental to the universe that it would be ever recreated by means of evolution, if events caused a return to a lifeless universal phase.
It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work and to also prove that humans are incapable of reducing human suffering to an acceptable level, no matter how much time they have to increase their knowledge of the structure and workings of the universe and their tech.
I don't care about antinatalists who use such words as 'that's not good enough.' My answer to such is the same one as I would give a child, constantly pestering for more candy.
'Well, that's all you're getting for now, you will just have to wait under we have more knowledge and better tech.'

Most natives of the Americas were actually wiped out by disease rather than - as many like to believe - war and genocide. War and genocide barely did anything compared to this. — I like sushi

I think I already covered your points earlier, including your concern about 'people' rather than 'peoples,' with:

Some 2000 tribes of people lived on that landmass for thousands of years longer than it was labelled Brazil. It's very insulting and historically ignorant to hand wave away the significance of the crime of genocide, inflicted on the indigenous people of the land mass, now labelled as Brazil, by European horrors such as the Portuguese empire and their accompanying offerings, such as influenza, smallpox, god, the Portuguese language and gunpowder. — universeness

We lost. I'm sorry that my admission of defeat annoys you. — Vera Mont

Losing battles is very very different from losing the war. The struggle continues without you.

I'm sure you're right. — Vera Mont

Hopefully. — Vera Mont

I think that deep down, you are screaming and shouting inside your young memory, in support of those Iranian girls Vera. I am not sure your admission of defeat is as final as you project in your typing's. You could still be quite dangerous to those you think, won. You might shove a blunt instrument right up their ..... when they least expect it, if they piss you off enough.

The best way to prepare them is to teach them elementary survival skills: how to find your way home, how to build a fire, where to dig for water, how to build a raft and a lean-to out of wreckage, how to season termite stew, how to avoid pissing off the big guy sitting next to you. — Vera Mont

It's annoying that so many folks who seemed to have fought the good fight when they were younger, can now only offer some survivalist post-apocalyptic, dystopian prediction of the future of humanity. I am sure it makes the nefarious rich and powerful happy, that their efforts have managed to reduce some older more experienced people to such a depressing viewpoint. I think such a viewpoint is a minority one, especially amongst the global youth. I think the young schoolgirls in Iran right now, who are burning their Burkas and jumping on images of the Islamic theists, currently running their country, are answering your attempt to look into your crystal ball darkly at their future. Hopefully, by the time they get to my age or older, they will have found common ground and unison with the youth of America who hate trumpism and evahellicals, and Russian youth who hate Putin, and Chinese youth who hate the fake communist-coloured plutocrats currently in charge there. I could add many other examples of such global youth who despite their differences in culture, tradition, creed, nationality etc, in reality, they have common cause.

I have survivalist books and I understand very well the threat of tyrants and bullies. That is what we must educate against because things will not be good for humanity if those jerks are the only ones with power. — Athena

:clap:

Thank you so much for that Elvis video. — Athena

:up: Elvis did one or two politically relevant songs, but not many. I think his biggest song containing a vital message about an example of how bad things can get, if we don't pay attention to the nurturing of our global youth is one you will probably know well:

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 agree.

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

Martin Luther King got involved in politics, to reduce or stop minority groups living lives of unbearable suffering, due to racism and a lack of human/civil rights.
Gandhi got involved in politics to free the people in his subjugated nation from the unbearable suffering being imposed apon them, due to British imperialism.
I could cite many more examples.

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

I broadly agree, but the people you describe above are the ones I continue to combat, by trying to convince their supporters, through reasoned debate/dialogue/discourse, to stop supporting such nefarious, narcissistic and in some examples, evil people who peddle evil policies and evil ideas, which in political examples, have the hidden agenda of gaining new or maintaining the current wealth and power of the nefarious few.

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

Natural selection still affects humans, humans continue to evolve related to their environment, but human science will have a far more significant effect and far faster effect on human physiology/biology than evolution through natural selection. So human intent via human science creates human selection but it does not replace evolution and natural selection, that will continue until universal entropy, returns the Universe to nothing but energy.

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

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.'

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

No, I think many animals demonstrate intent. Even instinct can have an aspect of intent imo.
We don't know if extra-terrestrial intelligent life exists, if it does, then we are not even the only conscious agents with intent at our level of intellect. So, absolutely yes, there is a gradation or range of ability to demonstrate and impose intent, within all living entities.

There is clear space between natural selection (no intent) and human selection (intent).
Human selection is directly responsible for the evolutionary direction of almost every dog/cat/domesticated animal species alive today. This is also true for many flora/plant species.
I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection.

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

Yes, you summarise the moral issue quite well. But my argument regarding the moral dilemma peddled by @Tzeentch is that his issue of 'common morality' is extensively overblown by him and it does not have the force behind it that he is trying to peddle. Human morality is not as significant as the natural imperative to procreate, as a defence against extinction. The natural development of asexuality in many flora and fauna species is evidence for this, 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. In fact, evolution through natural selection will even alter species over evolutionary time to assist a species to survive in its environment, regardless of any issue related to the human concept of morality. I think these biological facts, push the comparative human morality issue peddled by Tzeentch, towards a gnat sized concern. I think it does the same to schopenhauer1's human suffering flavour. The theistic antinatalism flavours and propositional logic conflations used by Bartricks are just too ridiculous to need much effort to combat. He can only get the fountain to slightly drip onto the deck of the ship.
One bailer could put his pail down for most of his/her life before having to take a moment to bail bartricks out of our progressive human ship.

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

You can concentrate on that, and I will try to help stop any bailers switch to maintaining the spouting fountain. I think you have the tougher task!

However, those who thought their way through life, are even more valuable in their later years. — Athena

Absolutely!

That is not what I have seen because the closest we can get to immortality is what we leave for the young. The greatest heartache of the people I know is the young not listening to their words of experience and they are struggling to hold their tongues. — Athena

Again, absolutely true!

However, we can become politically active. We can testify at public hearings on all levels of government. We can join organizations that are doing the work we want to be done. — Athena

YES WE CAN! (Ok I am quoting Obama a little, but he was certainly not the originator of these words, it was probably first uttered in a different language, in some disagreement between two early tribes of homo sapiens) Something like 'nu no cnu' (or no you can't) responded to with YU WU CA! (no translation required)

The Older Americans Act is all about keeping us socially connected and involved. That Act entitles us to decent housing, transportation, and continuing education and gave us nutrition sites and senior centers. :lol: Because of the fear of what we will do with our united power, we can't use our senior centers for political purposes. But I must stress our entitlements are to maintain us as contributing members of society. — Athena

:grin: It would be a site for sore eyes to see all those centers of age and experience rebel into a politcal force that helped smash trumpism and its like, for ever.
As Elvis said:

One aspect of your posts that I find reinforcing is your exemplifications that are happening or have happened in the real world. A lot of posters don't offer many actual exemplifications that they have read about or witnessed in detail. It adds such a lot to posits when good exemplification is included.
As a teacher of 30+ years, before I took early retirement, I don't think I only ever focussed on merely producing trained monkies for the tech world as you seemed to suggest is happening today.
I think there is a great deal of social and moral training/debate/discussion that goes on, at least in Scotland's Secondary Schools. I was involved with a lot of 'link' initiatives with employers and universities such as 'The Glasgow University Ambassador scheme' etc. The morality, ethics, politics, social impact of my field of Computing Science was very much an aspect of what and how I taught the subject, but perhaps it was not as big an aspect as it should and needs to be. There was the enormous pressure of getting through the material, preparation, intermediate testing and reporting, etc etc in preparation for the big final exam. So, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to get the balance correct. But the pupils I taught seemed to have a higher quality of inputs compared to what I remember receiving or being offered when I was at school.

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.

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

We can but try! :strong:

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

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.

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

So, do you agree that if an intelligent species reproduced asexually then antinatalism as an option dies?
So, would the morality issue you champion. Does that not give 'nature, evolution, natural selection,' the upper hand over your morality issue? Natural selection can and has produced asexual species showing that antinatalism, as irrational as it is, is only applicable to species who reproduce through sex or through some future transhuman process. We also have the evidence that the universe has already passed the event of life creation. This, to me, makes antinatalism very unlikely to succeed even if we were imbalanced enough to all vote for it.

And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of? — Tzeentch

I answered this at the end of my last post to you:

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

Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent. — Tzeentch

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.

It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking. — Tzeentch

Hah! this from someone who cherry-picks from aspects of human constructions of morality to peddle an antinatalist stance. :roll:

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently!
— universeness

I'm not. — Tzeentch

I dont want to get all panto on you but Oh yes you are!

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

Right back at you, I can confirm to you that your antinatalism is no threat to me, but it is perhaps a threat to any here who are more mentally vulnerable than I.

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

Skeptical in what way? 'Ends do not justify means' is not an objective universal truth!
If I break the law and kill a killer who was planning to kill you and your loved ones.
If I killed that killer by breaking into their house and killing them before they carried out their plan to kill you then I would most likely be convicted and jailed for it. Well OK! That's the price I may have to pay under the law/rules of human morality. But perhaps many would feel that the Ends I achieved DID justify the means I employed. You and your family might indeed feel that way! Such is personally subjective, yes?

Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong. — schopenhauer1

Oh sure, let's go Kant. I think the clue might be in his name!
A normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action, is a very poor methodology to apply to the issue of species survival and progression.
Perhaps you need to switch your methodology to one which does consider consequences and by doing so you might finally see that the natural imperative to reproduce and continue the human story is a better choice that pausing the story, returning to the beginning and starting the process again to arrive at the same point with perhaps a different sexual reproduction method such as parthenogenesis.

That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons. — schopenhauer1

Not true, based on the examples I have already given. If you are correct that humans do not experience a natural imperative to reproduce, then why do so many humans feel unfulfilled if they don't?
I agree it can be suppressed but you have to work at that and maintain it. If someone claims they can suppress the natural imperative to reproduce with no effort at all, with no conflict arising ever, in their mind and body then I say they are lying.

Huh? Not even the argument. Another red herring. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, just keep 'phishing' and keep deluding yourself that you're catching anything, never mind actual red herrings.

Assertion that adds nothing to the argument. Rhetorical filler. — schopenhauer1

Typed by you as a rhetorical filler!

A truth isn't how successful it sells to an audience. People often don't see "truth" at all, and certainly not right away. — schopenhauer1

I know, you have demonstrated that 200 times on TPF apparently. Come on son, your audience needs more convincing. Keep schoppin!

1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering). — Benj96

But the antinatalist @Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism?

In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective). — Benj96

Yeah, I agree, antinatalism is contradictory.

They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely. — Benj96

Agreed!

Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem). — Benj96

Agreed!

In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel. — Benj96

It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers? Some dishonest interlocuters live on the buzz of contoversy.
Look at characters like Alex Jones (recently fined a billion dollars for his BS about the horrific Sandy Hook school attack), Ben Shapiro, who loves and lives off being controversial, Piers Morgan is exactly the same as is Donald Trump.
There is a horrible organised group in America called the ANI(Antinatalism International). To me even their name seems backwards. I won't post any of their nonsense here, but they should not be merely ignored. TPF member @DA671 already posted some awful but relevant footage from organised American antinatalists and it is material that should raise flags of concern. Having typed that, I do think that antinatalism remains gnat sized in the big human picture.

I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world.

I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. — Tzeentch

You have simply decided to supress it, but it is still part of you, and it will revisit you at times. I have no children and imo, I am now too late in life at 58 to have any. You will see family units, having joyous interactions, especially parents and small infants, you will hear a parent talk about how their children are more important to them than their own lives. You will hear people talk about their long historical family legacy and such will make you think for a moment, and you will have to reinforce your suppression.
Even drama scenes like:

Demonstrate the 'natural imperative' and the suffering that can be caused by not reproducing.
Some people who cannot have children suffer very badly. Antinatalists also handwave that away as well with 'it's immoral to alleviate your own suffering by bringing new life into the world which can also suffer.' Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking.

Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions. — Tzeentch

So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?'

You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again.
— universeness

I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing. — Tzeentch

So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum?

Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to. — Tzeentch

I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint.
I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.'

Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral. — Tzeentch

And when these 'unpalatable thoughts' surface in you, is your established morality able to cope and ensure you dismiss such thoughts as just the mere random musings of your mind that are based on your primal fears, formed from the fact that our species came through a 'jungle rules' phase?
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species?

No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency. — Tzeentch

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! Why is that not special pleading and immoral?

No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you. — Tzeentch

Oh, I am reading exactly what you are typing, and I understand every word, as your thinking is not exactly complicated. I find the very few, different flavours of antinatalism, typed about on this thread to be equal only in how irrational they are.
So, you are not an antinatalist, based on the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority (utilitarianism). 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? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive?

It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do. — Benj96

Based on your response, I think you agree that dilemma's such as the two I highlighted from Babylon 5, at least demonstrate that figuring complicated stuff out, can be really really tough.
I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition.