Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic? — ssu

Same reason why so many humans are still attracted to the 'freak show,' imo.
Finding out why some members of a species would vote for not just terminating themselves, but would vote for the termination of all life that is capable of suffering is fascinating, especially when it is based on free choice and not any law of nature. No amount of happiness can compensate for any amount of suffering it seems. Is there any cut off percentage for the anti-life people? If the average amount of human suffering against human happiness was 45% suffering and 55% happiness would that be good enough or do they want something like 5% suffering and 95% happiness?

To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful. — Benj96

Apology accepted and appreciated.

But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc? — Benj96

I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you?

Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof? — Benj96

You seem to depend too much on generalised conceptualisations rather than paying attention to the much more interesting, and reliable detailed case by case approach.

The family member may be a person who has cried wolf many times before or they may be sad, that's a judgement call based on your relationship. What has that got to do with whether human emotions actually exist. There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? Do you agree that you may show empathy and believe what another says about themselves, let them into your house and then watch them kill your family? Perhaps you need to be careful when you judge the intentions of others.

Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help — Benj96

I will try, The universe has no intent that we are aware of. We are not a networked consciousness, we experience individuality. There is me, myself and I (triune brain system) and everyone else.
I/WE demonstrate intent, so this could be conceived in its totality, as the intent of the universe.
My circle example can demonstrate this through individual choice of where a particular circle begins and ends (same place). Individually we can all choose any position we like on the circle. Every position on the circle is on offer, in this way the universe can be 'investigated' by creatures such as us. The fact that we can perform such investigations in the individual way we can (but we can also communicate our findings to each other), is evidence that there IS a YOU and an I. It is a demonstrable way to support 'I think therefore I am.'

Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? — Benj96

Yes. But the intent is individual, not universal, although there may be some concept of totality that we can suggest is some kind of emerging panpsychism but based on current evidence ...... meh!

It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? — Benj96

So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS.

How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any formt - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist. — Benj96

By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense.

You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. — Benj96

Stalemate then!

Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line. — Benj96

Infinity is not a measure, it is a concept just like paradox is not a state of propositional logic, it is also just a concept. We are unable to take such concepts any further than we have taken them in the past 100 years or more. We probably need another million years of scientific effort before we can garnish any real meaning from such concepts.

I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. — Benj96

How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent.

Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you — Benj96

Paint your wagon anyway you want! I judge by what you type not what you think you typed. You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient.

Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person. — Benj96

Yes, it is!

I spent a lot of my life doing that. At one time, I believed improvement was not merely possible, but that it would continue on beyond me. What I have seen instead is the erosion of much of the social progress my generation brought about. I no longer believe human are capable of sustained progress. I'm not even sure enough of us want it. — Vera Mont

So you have become hopeless, that's a shame after all your hard work.
I have not become hopeless, and I am confident that there are billions like me.

Well, good luck, then! — Vera Mont

Gee thanks! You have dropped the battle flag, others will pick it up and drive on, we cannot do otherwise, there are too many in need.

It basically means I reject the charge of thinking the way the exploiting class wants me to and that I don't consider 'utopian' a bad word. — Vera Mont

If you are actually campaigning and working hard to help make a better human civilisation and someone suggests you are trying to create a utopia and utopia means:

an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect:

synonyms:
ideal place · paradise · heaven · heaven on earth · Eden · Garden of Eden · Shangri-La · Elysium · the Elysian Fields · Happy Valley · seventh heaven · idyll · nirvana · bliss · Arcadia · Arcady · Erewhon

Then how can you think that such is other than a suggestion that your efforts will fail and that you cannot make a better human civilisation than we have now.

A democratic socialist/humanist administration which implements a resource-based economy.
— universeness

Sounds utopian to me — Vera Mont

You suggested the system I advocate for is utopian. I maintain it is not and it is offered simply as a better way for humans to live. You should withdraw your response above but if you don't want to then I will not insist any further.

And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify. — Benj96

Supernatural has no existent.

An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. — Benj96

So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes?

It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course. — Benj96

What has that got to do with whether or not an omnipotent creature can exist?

he universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people). — Benj96

The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent. The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything. As you type, the concept of evil is a human concept, its relevance to the universe is not understood and it is BS to suggest otherwise. Is your basic complaint here that I think the term BS is warranted at times and you don't? I have already suggested that perhaps you are simply more tenderfooted than I. You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care if its just that, your particular taste, when involved in discourse with others. You can hold hands with the anti-life posters if you want, as you try to reason with them that they are wrong. I choose to apply the term BS towards them when they type BS. If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. Go for it, let anyone who wants to cover you in BS, do so. You don't seem to mind.

What would you like to start with? — Benj96

We started a while ago.

Addition: The universe has no known intent so are you positing the universe as an omnipotent wiith no intent?

Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got. — Benj96

Go ahead, explain!

You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethcis? — Benj96

I don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural compared to the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing.

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? — Benj96

No , you are getting too excited! I am just able to recognise BS. I am sure you can do it to.

Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted. — Benj96

Ok let's try a less extreme example.

An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil.

To me that's just BS because its illogical. If a creature is omnipotent, then it has full control over suffering. What do you think?

Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible? — Benj96

All gods. I have no problem with someone's personal woo woo regarding their personal god.
They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based only.

Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc. — Benj96

You can choose to give mindspace to the woo woo beliefs of others if you wish, it's your brain space.
I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that.

Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. — Benj96

That seems to be your analysis and employment of the word 'worship,' but it's certainly not mine.
I can experience heights of emotion, yes, as all humans can but I have never applied such a manic term as 'worship,' to any of my drivers or goals in life.

For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation. — Benj96

If that is an analysis of my posting on TPF then I reject it completely and I would suggest that certainly on this thread, I have provided as much evidence for my position as any of the anti-life posters.
If you think I am being a bit harsh towards the anti-life posters, then fine but perhaps that's just because I am not as tender a foot as you. You reveal your own conceit with "And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself.

Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.
No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."
Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts? — Benj96

Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS.
Donald Trump is the most intelligent man on the planet earth today!
I saw god's face in my cornflakes this morning!
Napoleon was actually a lizard alien from an exoplanet in the Vega star system!
I can tell you all the major events in your future!
I can speak to dead people.
Any of these seem like BS to you Mr Benj?

I have, some time ago. I do not use the term pejoratively; I wear it with proper humility: I'm a utopian pastoral socialist by conviction, though I cannot live up to the ideal. I'm also on the brink of extinction. If I were younger and less tough, some jillionaires would make a fetish of serving my flesh in their exclusive club restaurants. — Vera Mont

This has too much personal depth in it for me to accurately unpackage. I can run it around in my head, but I am sure that whatever interpretations I come up with will not match your intent closely enough.
You would need to explain your logic and the emotional drivers behind the imagery you invoke.
If you simply mean you now feel you are too old to be an effective warrior in your quest for a better world, then you would be better having a PM exchange with @Athena on that stuff as you could probably both be a support for each other imo. I am 58, I don't know how I will feel about fighting the good fight, when I am a lot older. That's if I ever reach 'a lot older.'

It's certainly true there is still a great deal of work to do before we achieve a better global human society.
I think today's youth are up to the task and I agree they will still need all the help they can get.
I don't concur with all of the reasons you cite for why we are where we are now but that's not as important as the fact that you do your best to be part of the solutions and that's about as much as anyone can ask of any individual.

:lol: Those who connect anti-life posits with omni god posits, have to muse on why a superhero god does not end the experiment the anti-life people exclaim is a complete failure, based on the evidence of human suffering or/and the futility of human existence. If you believe this supernatural omni exists, then your disagreement is with it. So, you should spend all the time you can, communicating your complaints with it, and not those of us that are mere dots on this universal petri dish, created by your omni god.

Sounds utopian to me — Vera Mont

The nefarious few are most happy when the abused majority believe that any real improvement is utopian, beyond their reach and a forlorn hope. So, those sounds you are hearing are capitalist signals.
Stop thinking in the exact way the nefarious few want and need you to think.

Might 'work' not be re-imagined so that independent people spend part of their time pursuing their creative endeavours, part of their time in co-operative efforts that benefit the whole community and its environment, part of it in games, social activities and entertainment, and part in solitary contemplation? — Vera Mont

YES!!! and a UBI would support this!

Utopia! — Vera Mont

No, just a better way of living.

In a capitalist world, you cannot have any other kind. Nor have we had any other kind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. — Vera Mont

So, you agree, we need to change that and reject the capitalist world?

How, where, when and how fast new technology is used is controlled entirely by the owners of the means of production - who also control the terms and conditions of employment. They can be regulated by government and mitigated by collective bargaining - unless they also own the government, which, in capitalist societies, they mostly do. — Vera Mont

So, again, you agree we need to change the owners of the means of production and their control over the terms and conditions of employment?

I support a non-party based politics with no presidential style elections, no monarchies/aristocracies/autocracies/cults of personality/cults of celebrity/plutocracies or theocracies. No money or some money but a universal basic income to keep such under control and balanced.
A democratic socialist/humanist administration which implements a resource-based economy.

We need new ideas for a new reality and it is very exciting to think about the civilization we could have, verses the human suffering and cruelty of our past. — Athena

Fantastic, hopeful, encouraging words that our next generation so badly need to hear as they can make it happen.

That's why the European Union was established. One of the main objectives was avoid both USA and Soviet block. — javi2541997

And China, I think. An independent Scotland would try to re-join the European union.
I would go further, I love the idea of a continent called the UPE, The United Peoples of Europe!

An angry discontented global youth has the ability to end the civilisation models currently established in China and the USA. People make countries and people can remould them in whatever way they wish if they become really determined to do so and they become large enough and organised enough.
Both those systems are only a couple of hundred years old. They are really just infant manifestations of the way humans can choose to live.

More goods are produced, faster. More resources are used up faster. more waste is produced and released into the air, water and land faster. It literally eats the planet. Meanwhile, the people who have no jobs have no income. So who's buying all that product? Does it go straight from the factory into the landfill, like the packaging it comes in? People have to clean up the waste. They have to be paid for that, so they can afford the goods the machines produce. That's usually done from public coffers, not private ones, so the people that are hired to clean up the waste are also the ones paying the taxes that pay their own salaries. Where is the surplus value that buys government services? — Vera Mont

Everything you type here is accurate when it comes to the current state of affairs. You identify that we cannot have production techniques which cause dangerous environmental/ecological impact. I would rather such tech was not brought in until it could be brought in without any such impact.
Recycling must also be as close to 100% as we can make it or else the tech should be delayed.

The solution may be something like universal basic income. — T Clark

:clap:

By what agency? Who is in charge of deciding and carrying out these policies? — Vera Mont

Democratic agency. The consent of the majority of all of the stakeholders involved or the consent of the majority of their democratically elected representatives under a very robust set of checks and balances.

I don't think there is a binary yes/no choice here.
Going back a bit in time, you might ask was it ethical to produce the horse and cart which meant that a lot fewer people where needed to move goods around?
I think there is a simple moral answer. If the excess people involved can be given other more interesting work to do or/and they can still access the basic needs of survival, then the tech should be brought in.
If not, then the new tech should be slowly phased in, and the old system should still be used until it is assured that any changes will allow the workers to experience zero reduction to their social or economic status.

That's the point I want to reach. I mean, it is not necessary to be so competitive in everything. — javi2541997

I couldn't agree more Javi. I love it when you type such words, they offer some hope as you are part of the younger generation compared to me. BUT, I would go much further. It's competition for resources and fear that you won't get what you and your loved ones need, unless you become a gangster, or a ruthless capitalist, that is helping to destroy all that is good and benevolent about the human being.

We have to stop competing as if we still have to live under jungle rules.
We have to stop competing at all levels, family level, local community level, city level, national level, international level, cultural level, emotional level, historical level etc etc.
We need to COOPERATE NOT COMPETE! Capitalism must be reduced very very significantly.

:lol: Moved to the lounge! Obviously, a mod/administrator thought this line of questioning threatened the very fabric of their capitalistic preferences!

Yes, it could be a rational solution. — javi2541997

I don't know about rational, but it's certainly a racist, elitist solution.

Nevertheless, these digits are so relative because despite Spain (or "number fourteen") is poorer than China ("number one") the latter is sh*t at human rights and it is completely a dictatorship. — javi2541997

But those in charge of country 1 would just call you a deluded 14 who peddles fake news about country 1 because you claim to live better as a 14 national than those who experience human life as a 1 national. The authorities in country 1 would simply suggest that the authorities in country 14 needs to re-educate nationals such as you or else they will never be named any better than country 14, in fact they might soon become country 15 or less based on the attitude of their citizens such as you.
I find it interesting that if we apply the main tenets of 'jungle rules' and free market capitalism logically then such a method of naming countries could become accepted and could create an even more horrible society than we have at present. Or do you disagree? Can you envisage any massive advantages of naming countries in this way, am I being way too negative about the idea?

:rofl: It's fascinating that you think such an act has any significance. If you convince everyone on TPF to do the same then, yes, you will certainly succeed in diminishing whatever presence or influence I have on others through TPF and I would either stop posting here or post much less until perhaps I got responses from new members but on a planet of almost 8 billion people, the little tantrums of frank are not as significant as you obviously think they are.

I know what he was 'just typing,' I was not personally offended. Perhaps the indigenous people of Brazil would be?

Imagine our country is called "number three" but for some reasons it gets better and changes to "number one". I see this a nonsense because the culture and customs of one country tend to be static so numerical ratings would mean a world based on countries without culture. — javi2541997

But there could be national celebration and enormous national pride and many new opportunities for the people of country 3 who have progressed (based on the measures of capitalism) more than those who's have earned nationality 1. Their country in now named country 1 BECAUSE they obviously must have the best culture and custom foundations, as such has inspired their people to become the best at surviving according to the jungle rules and the tenets of capitalism. So many people admire the rich and want to become rich themselves, so should they not have the right to become citizens of country 1?
Why should they have to stay amongst the less entrepreneurial peoples of a country whose nationality is not even in the top 10?
Perhaps we could even use such a system of naming countries to silence all those people who think their country is the best country in the world!

Interesting, if we based the rating purely on the main measurements used to rate the success of free market capitalism. Do you think most humans would want to live in country 1 or 2?
Do you think the 'happiest people,' people who were simply asked a question such as 'how personally content are you, based on living in this country number?' Would be always in the top 10?
Do you think people who lived in country 100 would be considered way inferior to people who lived in country 1 by most people in the world?
How much do you think people would rebel against naming countries based on such criteria?
Do you think we would have more rebellious, politically aware people than we do today?

Thanks for contributing Javi! My question is not about how we came to choose the names chosen for our current 197 countries. Its about what affects do you think it would have on our society IF we named countries based on a numerical rating, based on their success in employing the capitalist system.
I have always found the capitalist system to be akin to primeval human behaviours, related to our 'laws of the jungle' heritage. I am interested in your opinions of 'what YOU think would happen to our 'human society,' if we named countries based on this 'competitive' imperative, which is so pushed in the capitalist doctrine.

I was speaking about etymology. — javi2541997

So was I Javi. That about covers the importance of a countries name imo, its nothing but mere etymology. You did inspire me to write a wee thread however. I would be interested in any post you contribute to it. Only if it interests you of course.

I do understand some of your more unpalatable world views friend, which is why I am trying to debate stuff with you. As it seems to me, you have a great deal of good in you as well.

I look forward to the day when you type about the completely unjust and genocidal treatment of the global indigenous populations which existed all over this planet.
I look forward to your insistence that the remainder of these 'first nations' must be fully respected, protected and have their future secured.
We could still learn so much from them about how to treat and respect the ecology of our planet.
I look forward to your typing's about how angry you feel about the more horrific history of the peoples who live/have lived on the landmass, whose name has changed from Iberia/Hispania to Spain, in the same way I am angry with the more horrific history of the landmass I currently live on.
You can start such typing's whenever you feel enlightened enough to do so.
Yeah, I know, just like you, I can be a sarcastic sod as well.

Thanks for understanding me, friend. — javi2541997

Before Portuguese galleons arrived to America, there were living indigenous people but that specific territory wasn't named as "Brazil" until the Portuguese conquerors decided to put this name. — javi2541997

That's the whole point Javi. There were millions of people living on that land mass before it was named after the relative nobody Amerigo Vespucci. Brazil was named by the Portuguese after a common tree that grew along the coast (brazilwood tree) in that particular landmass. There is not a lot of significance in that. 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.

There weren’t native peoples of Brazil because “Brazil” is a creation of Portugal — javi2541997

Are there no native Americans because that place became named after a mapmaker?

There weren’t native peoples of Brazil because “Brazil” is a creation of Portugal and the only official language of Brazil is Portuguese. The rest are just spoken languages. — javi2541997

Make sure you include an emoticon of a clown mask, when you type such words Javi or readers will think you have lost your way.
Just in-case your serious. These might help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Brazil

All sources are in Brazilian Portuguese precisely because if you all would like to give your opinion on the internal affairs of our nation, learn to read our language — Gus Lamarch

Don't you mean, learn the language of those who conquered the native peoples of Brazil in the 15th century? If the native cultures had been left alone, no doubt, they would have merged and grown into a nation with as interesting a culture as that of the Marajoara.

Bolsonaro is just another gangster. Lula is the better of the two evils, but hopefully Brazilians will eventually demand much better representatives/leaders than both of them. Save the Earths lungs!

Neither to me are incompatible. — Benj96

Well, where I suggest that @180 Proof is being a doomster and a pessimist is that the over-population we experience today and the 'pressing' problems we experience today can only be solved by what @180proof labelled a Malthusian (which I had to google) solution. I suggest that is dystopian and in is no way necessary or inevitable or even the most likely outcome of our current conditions, even based on all the horrors we see today. I also don't accept that advances we make in transhumanism means that our 'early' stages of life cannot still be nurtured, protected and enjoyed. A baby becomes an infant, teenager, young adult, middle aged, old and then before death, starts to employ tech to become transhuman, IF THEY CHOOSE TO. That to me is not a utopia, it's just a projection of a possible future that gives humans more protection, control and choice in their lives.

Fair enough, a good place to leave it. I disagree with you that I am panglossian or utopian and I still think your are pessimistic and a doomster, but thanks for the exchange. :smile:

What value can something that can't (to my knowledge) continue to better itself have? — TiredThinker

You seem to be congested by a 'futility' vibe. A human can improve themselves whilst they are alive and they can leave a legacy that can assist others for a very, very long time, that's why you know who Socrates is, despite the fact he left no physical writings himself and he stopped existing thousands of years ago. Can you not be content with that and the hope of increased longevity/choice in the future of our species? The latter is probably beyond your reach, but the former isn't.

Yeah, different languages but same character types!