(The other example that leaps to mind also comes from Hume: how do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?) — Srap Tasmaner

Part of the problem is the error bars get wider if you base your musing on an inaccurate base such as the one stated above. The Sun DOES NOT IN FACT RISE OR SET, it is the Earth that turns.
Quantum physics shows that there is some 'missing physics' between classical physics and quantum physics so it is likely that classical mathematics and classical propositional logic such as If p then q conditionals do not apply to phenomena such as quantum tunnelling.

You confirmed what I said: if those who talk are expert people, you are not interested in considering their flaws: it is like you think “They are experts! They must be right! We don’t need evidence!“, and, on the other side, “Angelo Cannata is not an expert, so, it is good to ask for empirical evidence!”. — Angelo Cannata

Well perhaps I confirmed to you what you need to be confirmed in accordance with your own musings.
I require empirical evidence before I move an idea from idea to hypothesis to theory to fact, no matter who posits it. 'They are experts, they must be right,' is merely your incorrect projection of what I typed as you are trying to defend a very weak position. You handwave away the work of Penrose and Hameroff. That is very unwise in my opinion and you do it based on your own armchair philosophy, again unwise. You should stop doing that, perhaps if you do, this emperor you keep seeing will get its clothes back.
Scientists want to find as much empirical evidence for their posits as they can. They relish the challenge. They do not find that requirement a burden. It's only theists, theosophists and the like that worry about the burden of proofs when they get challenged by non-believers.
Scientists are quite happy when they get proved wrong because it means progress for all.

So, those who say that the Emperor is naked are to be considered “armchair philosophy”, by principle, whithout any need to check, and viceversa. — Angelo Cannata

So go ahead and cite all the sources you have to back up your position and I am sure you will get supportive and dissenting feedback. Do more than type merely your own musings from your armchair.

Well, that was an interesting trip through your personal musings regarding the universe.

Does the universe have a purpose? — Srap Tasmaner

In my opinion, the answer is absolutely yes! The totality of all conscious life within it gives the universe purpose and the main purpose for me is to ask and try to answer questions. When all the answers (if ever) are known. The universe may then 'become.' I have no idea what it will 'become.' The limits of my imagination fail at that point. I will not use the soiled label 'god' but if all questions are answered then omniscience is achieved in a collective, totality sense. If omniscience is achieved then omnipotence is probably consequential.
I assume omnipresence would be plausible at that point and I don't think omnibenevolence will be relevant. Just thought I would offer you back some of my own playful musings.

BTW, my preferred term is "awareness". — Alkis Piskas

:up: We all have our preferred terms.
Is your 'overall' view of the source of human 'awareness' akin to dualism?

Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain. — Alkis Piskas

Yep, I thought you might appreciate his position. He is as you say a fascinating scientist.
I think his 'Deep Mind' group are leading edge and they seem to have a lot going on in the AI area.
Near the end of the interview, he talks about being able to fully simulate a human cell within the next few years. I don't think he dismisses the work of Penrose and Hameroff, I think he just remains unconvinced of some of the premises behind the work. You should definitely watch the whole interview if you find the time.

What’s the point of making discussions here if experts have to be just honoured because of their expertise, and we have to ignore purposedly our perplexity? Isn’t this just the situation of the Emperor’s New Clothes story? — Angelo Cannata

I have no problem with you airing your viewpoints. My problem is when you handwave away expertise in favour of your own musings using sweeping generalisation. Provide your own empirical evidence before you just keep complaining about the lack of it from those actively involved in researching the area.
Armchair philosophy will not get us very far, entertaining yes, even mildly interesting but nothing more than that.

Your post has Martin Rees written all over it — Agent Smith

Absolutely although I first realised how important human consciousness may be to the universe via Carl Sagan, but Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, another fantastic true seeker.

and only for us? — magritte

Hopefully not. Come on SETI, find them aliens!

As I said, we are talking about science. In science there is not defeatist or non defeatist, optimism or non optimism. Science is made by scientific procedures, hypotheses that must be clear, experiments, repeatability.

What is clear in research on consciousness? — Angelo Cannata

I agree that the scientific method does not employ emotion but scientists are human and do employ emotion just like you and I do. Your position is defeatist in my opinion. I did not try to conflate your defeatism with the scientific method. I see no relevance to your point.
In the video both Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff mentioned experiments that are in the pipeline which may provide some of the empirical evidence you are asking for. There is also the evidence that photosynthesis most likely employs quantum entanglement and there is also evidence such as:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/birds-direction-quantum-mechanics-compass-physics#:~:text=Birds%20could%20get%20their%20sense%20of%20direction%20from,by%20their%20innate%20sense%20of%20north%20and%20south.
Birds may get their sense of direction from quantum physics.
examples of how quantum physics is employed by everyday processes may be anecdotal evidence that there is a very good chance that quantum physics is also employed in human consciousness but I agree with you that much more evidence is required. It is defeatist and a unqualified sweeping generalisation to simply handwave away all the efforts currently being made by Roger Penrose and many others based on the musings of Angelo Cannata. I am sure, if you thought about it you would come to the same conclusion.

Ok, I recommend you go with 2. but I assume you meant to type
2) or IT DOES exist.

Keep watching the offerings from the people I mentioned earlier as well as continuing with your own personal musings and gathering any actual evidence that backs up your position and then you might get more support for your position.

Science is not made by respect or value. It doesn't matter how famous or respectable these people are. Science is made by experimental evidence, clarity, strict definitions. — Angelo Cannata

I said nothing about any fame or respect associated with the people I mentioned. I refer to their expertise in the area. If you have equivalent expertise or some other reason others should value your opinions highly then do tell us why?

Astronmers are there to put us in our place! :snicker: — Agent Smith

Our place as the only species in the universe, as far as we know, that can build something like the James Webb telescope and find out a little more about the universe. Not bad for a fragile race of short lived bipeds currently restricted to a planet comparable to a grain of sand on the cosmic scale.
Yet all the universal vastness may only be able to claim any significance through us!

a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist. — Angelo Cannata

Why do you feel qualified to make such a statement, other than here is my opinion based on nothing but my own conjecture?

It is a complete nonsense that science is doing all over the world, — Angelo Cannata

What do you mean? Why make such sweeping generalisations that convince no one of anything?

because when they say "consciousness" they don't know what they are talking about. — Angelo Cannata

and you seriously think you do? What is your suggestion? Is it don't ask any questions about consciousness because humans are unable to ever find out what is it and why it is?
I could never be that defeatist. I think I will continue to value the work being done by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steve Pinker, Demis Hassabis, et al, on human consciousness, over the defeatist musings of Angelo Cannata. With all due respect of course.

Yeah, clap clap clap - argument p is a shite argument for q, Bartricks holds that q is true, therefore Bartricks made the shite argument. I'm a good reasoner me!!!

Logic from Xtrix and universenes:

If p, then q; not p, therefore not q — Bartricks

:clap: :clap: :clap: I always appreciate your attempt to entertain others with your bizarre musings.

Yes you can expect to get more sense from the socialist, so it's actually worth arguing. My lefty politics are what I'm passionate about, but I do sympathise with anti-natalism. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think I have made my arguments against antinatalism crystal clear by now, so I have explained why I would help build and maintain cities. The two vids posted by DA671 should give you pause for thought when it comes to your interest/slight support of antinatalism. To me it's completely incompatible with socialism/humanism as both of those doctrines are pointless if no humans exist.

:clap: :up:

End of our exchange then! I am glad I am not infected by antinatalism and I am immune.
No doubt some of the crazies who jump on its coattails will cause some horror somewhere sometimes in the future but they will get no further.

Yes. You objectively have no rational stake in the survival of the human race.

It will survive with you, or without you — Tzeentch

But it won't survive without everyone!

It's no different from being emotionally invested in your favorite sports team. No matter how hard you shout and cheer, your impact on the outcome is negligible. — Tzeentch

Again absolutely untrue a crowd often inspires their team to beat the other team.

Thrusting people into existence is immoral, but once people are in existence they're there and it's an entirely different situation. — Tzeentch

Ok, then you can wag your finger disapprovingly if you wish and then welcome all the babies as they arrive.

Children shouldn't be used to fill a void. That's a burden no child should have to bear. — Tzeentch

They are not filling a void they are becoming a sentient lifeform and fulfilling a natural evolutionary imperative in their parents and you handwave away the pain it would cause them if they were childless based on what YOU think is morally sound. You hold a tiny minority opinion and in my opinion a disturbing one.

If mankind cannot develop or continue to exist morally, I don't see why it should at all. But I'm not interested in such things. I try to live life morally, and nothing more. That's why I test my ideas in the crucible of free discourse. Not to convince anyone or to judge anyone. — Tzeentch

Watch the clips that @DA671 posted above and comment, they are not long clips.

I watched about 6 mins of it then had enough. This is always the problem, extreme viewpoints like antinatalism, attracts some seriously disturbed individuals. These creatures are not like any of the people I have clashed with on this thread I assume but they should watch it and understand the cautionary message it suggests. Hopefully the American authorities are keeping tabs on them otherwise I am sure they will appear on CNN in the future having committed some heinous act that they attempt to justify using some variety of the relatively harmless antinatalist reasoning typed on this thread.

Looks like my concerns are not unreasonable. I wouldn't like her as a neighbour!
Let's see if the antinatalists around this thread will watch and comment on the vid you link to. I hope they do better than 'well, you always get crazies!'

I am surprised at your surprise. Because we have clashed on occasion does not mean I don't value your opinions. Our viewpoints often differ but if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning.
You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo.
I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input.

That apparently even by your own estimation we're only talking about a relatively small number of people making voluntary decisions, does little to explain your defensiveness. — Tzeentch

You are probably right that I am smashing a small nut with a large sledgehammer. Perhaps I am being over cautious or perhaps I am just future-proofing on behalf of all responsible natalists.

I'm not voting for anything, nor am I telling anyone what to do - I'm just laying out an argument. Apparently you find that very threatening — Tzeentch

No not threatening, I just find antinatalism a vile idea, in the same way I find most extremely fringe views quite disturbing. There are some antinatalists who do not seek consent. I have not encountered them but @DA671 has. If I am wrong about that then I am sure he will correct me. That would be my main concern however. Those who peddle antinatalism may well create a variety that does not require consent and then we could have nonsense like 'harm for the purpose of ending all suffering.'
Do you not have any concern for this possibility?

Humans that proclaim to be heavily invested in the "survival of the human race" - something they hold no rational stake in, nor influence over - cannot be said to be rational. — Tzeentch

Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race?
If I say I think the human race has a vital role to play in the universe and its survival is essential to the purpose of the universe, do you simply handwave that away, not matter how much I protest?

I was speaking specifically of people who are suffering harshly, whether it's physical, mental, emotional.
People who by their own account would rather die than live.
On what basis are you claiming they are living a wonderful life? — Tzeentch

We seem to be talking past each other here. I was not suggesting that everyone is living a wonderful life or people who say they are having a terrible life are secretly having a wonderful one. I was suggesting that those who are not having a wonderful life does not provide sufficient reason to support antinatalism.
I support human euthanasia if they are in a state of terminal suffering and you have their consent.

I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch

You are hairsplitting. The latter causes the former or are you saying that the immorality of the parents end once the child is born?

Deciding not to push a parachutist out of a plane is not comparable with ignoring the instinctive imperative to have children. As I have said many times. Many people would be greatly harmed if they could not have children. Some would feel utterly incomplete without children and would not see any point to the future without them. Do you wish to suggest to such people that they are immoral to want children? I would suggest your health would be in danger if you try to, face to face.

Yet all of us seem to agree that certain things are wrong. Things that involve doing things to other people without their consent. Rape, murder, that sort of thing — Tzeentch

Yes, humans can agree/disagree on such.

It's just a matter of applying these principles consistently and we come to the conclusion that forcing people to live is wrong not because we want it to be wrong, but because the consistent application of logic dictates it — Tzeentch

No, we are not forcing people to live we are allowing new life to be born and the species to continue as an instinctive imperative that took 13.8 billion years to develop.

I knew your contribution would be an interesting one in this particular area. I enjoyed reading it.
If you get a chance you should watch the Demis Hassabis interview I posted above.
You might find some of the AI future projections interesting.

:lol: You sound much healthier than me!

Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place?

Some antinatalists are our socialist brothers. Bartricks is in support of a Universal Basic Income. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why destroy everyone in the city if you could save them, even if it takes a long long time to achieve it. It's like the Sodom and Gomorrah biblical fables. Those dimwitted angels and the dimwitted god that sent them caused the death of everyone in both cities, when all they had to do was appear, demonstrate their power, educate those who did not understand the folly of their ways and they could have improved the lives of everyone in both cities and perhaps their progeny would have been very nice people.

If Barticks is a socialist who supports UBI then I would call him a brother in that sense. I would still argue with him until the universe ends that his support of antinatalism is misguided.
I have probably argued with more socialist brothers on many many issues that I have argued with capitalists or theists. Socialists/humanists must argue with each other as they care about getting things correct. Capitalists just care about themselves and those they care about. They all agree on one main policy. 'Lets make as much money as we can out of the majority by any means possible!' and theists just scapegoat their god and take no responsibility for anything.

My patience is about done dealing with you. — schopenhauer1

Aw didums! :lol: :rofl:

Mental gymnastics? — Tzeentch

Associating my mental prowess with the physical prowess of a gymnast is fine. If you are suggesting that I am contorting truths then I think you are wrong and you are the one who is twisting around.

If one believes as long as the ratio of happy to unhappy lives isn't getting close to 1:1000,000, then I guess you have a lot of work to do. Or did I miss the part where a million people's suffering is worth a single person's happiness, but your own convenience is not? — Tzeentch

If you read what I typed you would see that I suggested such a ratio would be of great concern IF TRUE but I typed that even if it was true, the solution is not antinatalism, it is the 'lot of work to do' that we would all be responsible for.

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? — Tzeentch

Oh I have no problem with that, I merely ridicule the suggestion that such consent will ever be given by all humans that exist. Antinatalism is therefore a dimwitted forlorn proposal and a completely pointless suggestion.

Not that there's any real danger of the entirety of mankind suddenly seeing the light. — Tzeentch

You are correct, there is no danger of the human race voting for their own extinction as they are capable of rational thinking.

unless one believes the human endeavor is one that needs to be prolonged at any cost. — Tzeentch

Yes, I would broadly agree with that as it took 13.8 billion years of happenstance to produce us, so let's try to figure out why before we decide to vote for extinction. Let's not surrender because we were too scared to live or exist.

I'm glad you feel that way. There's also a lot of misery though. There are many individuals who don't feel comforted, loved, encouraged, etc. They are alone, and sadly, they are many. Withering away, some even broken by the very parents that made the choice to have them in the first place. — Tzeentch

Do what you can to help!

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" — Tzeentch

I have met many people who have told me so. I am such a person so I am living a happy life, as are others on his forum as are many/most members of my immediate family as are most of my friends. There are many many life celebrants out there! Regardless of their personal struggles and suffrage.
The human experience has not left me a broken misanthrope. I love life and would find life pointless if comparators did not exist. I must know what pain is to appreciate pleasure.
It is the responsibility of humans to prevent extremities of suffering, unjustified suffering, immoral suffering but none of these are well defined by those who peddle antinatalism.

My central question remains unanswered:

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else?
— Tzeentch — Tzeentch

I disagree and would say further that if humans don't reproduce then their purpose in the universe will never be known as they will go extinct and no more questions can be asked or answered and that means the universe will have no purpose which in my opinion, is an unforgivable harm.
Where do you get the right to suggest that the existence of life is immoral due to the possibility of suffering or whatever else you think is a logical reason to support the antinatalist viewpoint.
The universe does not have any known moral imperatives. Humans invented moral imperatives.

Something which is an effort in vain to begin with. Just like death is inevitable, so is the eventual extinction of the human species. If you're of the opinion that all moral boundaries should be thrown overboard in order to prolong it I would disagree wholeheartedly — Tzeentch

Transhumanism may make death less inevitable in the future. Let's wait another few million years at least or perhaps at least 100 million years and then see what the human race is like. That's not very long when you consider the cosmic calendar.

:clap: I think it's a lot more than a lot. I often complain with the words '10,000 years of tears,' and these are valid words when it comes to what we could have achieved by now if we had united and killed the first nefarious b****** that declared himself King. BUT we have learned much about the nefarious since then no matter what robes of authority they wear or even if they appear to be your best friend!
We are still here and we are millions and we will get it right in the end.
We have been slaughtered for centuries but we are still here because those who reproduce allow good principles to endure. Antinatalism would utterly waste all the good progress that has been made alongside those 10000 years of tears!

I prefer to use it as a measure of how misanthropic some humans can become.
Let's lay some responsibility for pessimism onto the pessimist. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that this does not mean we can ignore the person at the party with the sad face. I have encountered such many many times and I will be one of those who try to cheer them up but sometimes your offers of help are soundly rejected. It's all very complicated. We can only keep trying to make things better for everyone.
@DA671 said it simply as,

No worries, sir. The journey shall go on. — DA671

and it will be ever thus until we do go extinct or the universe ends, whichever comes first.
After that, the Penrose bounce and CCC may prove true and then 'here we (or something like us) go again! Yeehaa!'

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible? — Tzeentch

Because we can be smarter than that. We can have sensible population control methods and develop better, fairer socio/political systems and better technologies to create the basic resources needed to offer every human a fully provisioned life from cradle to grave as an unassailable right. The suffering that antinatalists complain about would be reduced. Technical advances in transhumanism also offers a path to enhancing the robustness of humans and the longevity of their lifespans, offering more choice.

What makes child-having different? — Tzeentch

The difference is that following the antinatalist suggestion means extinction for our species.
Human suffering is an issue that humans have to deal with just like having to deal with not knowing why we are here and what our ultimate purpose is. We also have to deal with the knowledge that we will die but we are NOT ALONE, We can comfort, love, encourage, share, laugh, learn, change, grow, experience, ask questions, cry, complain, ask for help, give help etc etc.
What a wonderful life! If antinatalism made any sense then the 'smart' ancients would never have left their caves. Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis or the Neandertals would most likely have become the dominant species on this planet rather than the homo sapiens. Perhaps they would also have debated the folly of antinatalism as well, I personally think the majority of them would reject the dimwitted proposal as well.

I was not typing about individual judgments about how smart someone is. You keep typing about responsible procreation and sensible population control and that life can be tough. I have agreed with all such observations and warnings but you dilute the true intentions of antinatalism. It is not about population control or making smart wise decisions about when you should reproduce. The claim is that it is immoral to EVER reproduce, regardless of your circumstances. The antinatalist cure for all suffering is the nonexistence of any life. Don't minimise that ridiculous viewpoint by trying to dilute its malevolence.

I should have made my position clearer.
The city scenario you gave and the ratio you gave of sufferers to inhabitants would be two situations I would be compelled to fight against and alleviate. The point I was making is that neither situation you described are reasons to invoke antinatalism and end all future life in both scenarios.
It's dimwitted to end all suffering by refusing existence to all life.

As for electromagnetism, I subscribe to the "electron sea" model. What we rudimentarily call electrons are complex density contours induced by nuclear etc. force that shift around at relativistic speeds as coherent states, roughly analogous to a body of water in the case of solutions, an elastic, multimolecular crystal in the case of solids, etc. Coherence is not in my opinion a fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon: electric field condensation is induced by nuclei acting on the comparatively nonlocal substrate to produce loci of highest density we know as atoms, which interact at the speed of magnetism and light, but parts of the field not knotted up by nuclei can perturb and transmit energy at much faster rates. — Enrique

Is this not related to quantum field theory?
Btw you did not answer me about the Demis Hassabis interview I posted above?
Have you watched it? I would be interested in your response to it. No pressure!

We may vary in our approach to dealing with an emotive topic such as antinatalism but I think we are at least both humanists who will do everything they can do to help alleviate suffering. I remain hopeful that when faced with a situation of humans suffering, when your personal involvement could help, then most people would help, including @schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks

It's quite clear that we lack the info necessary to come to a definitive conclusion in re natalism/antinatalism — Agent Smith

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. I am not sure if my opinion would become a numbers game with a cut-off point if reliable evidence was presented that the ratio of happy lives against horrible lives was 1:1000000 or such like then the ground beneath my position might well quake severely. I honestly think that would just drive home to me more that I must do more to alleviate suffering! I still would not advocate for such a ridiculous, vile (Sorry @DA671) solution as antinatalism.
I think folks like DA671 and many other posters here would be very stoic supporters and contributors in trying to alleviate the suffering of others. Antinatalists would end the 13.8 billion years of happenstance it took to create life and would claim that this is a morally sound position to have. I cannot overstate how ridiculous I think that logic is! Yet schopenhauer1 still wants me to be gentle with him. DA671 has tried that and continue's to and I DO admire that but I see little or no return for his efforts.

You can at least teach your adherent over there a lesson in how to debate without flying off the (fuckn) handle. — schopenhauer1

It's not my fault you are rather sensitive. Never get into a debate face to face, with a group of average men in a pub about antinatalism. They would probably have you in tears in no time. REAL LIFE is not about walking around on your tippytoes scared to crack an eggshell! I find your antinatalist reasoning ridiculous and I find you are ossified on the subject and you won't listen to the correct points made by your dissenters here on this thread. @DA671 made an almost heroic attempt to maintain his tolerance of your arrogance when debating antinatalism with you on other threads but all you offered back was disrespect but when I give you a taste of your own medicine you start to moan about it! :lol:

I am grateful to you for your excessively kind words. However, as I have said before, I have a lot to learn. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that universal antinatalism is not a tenable position. — DA671

We all have a lot to learn but some are not willing to learn because they are ossified in their viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is unpalatable to any human capable of rational thought. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT, universal antinatalism is not a tenable position it is one of the most ridiculous, nasty, harmful suggestions I have ever heard posited by a thinking human.

The universe can exist without us.
— Jackson

And did, practically forever.

Should that bother us? — Srap Tasmaner

Can you perceive of any purpose for the universe during this time apart from its happenstance progress towards a lifeform capable of asking questions? What do you think it means if we cant? Does it matter to YOU? It's perfectly fine if your answer is something like I don't know as that would currently, probably be my answer but I am still 'excited,' by the question.

Au revoir. — Agent Smith

Hopefully just à bientôt.

Ah maybe a sock puppet then — schopenhauer1

It's your hand, you may put it inside any sock you fancy!
Hssssssssssss, crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, bye!

I'm sorry, that didn't compute! — Agent Smith

Dan Dennett states that philosophers help because they work so hard at trying to identify the correct questions to ask and pursue. He further states that all science starts as philosophical musings and that the history of philosophy clearly shows all the failed questions. It is the responsibility of modern philosophers not to repeat the mistakes of classical philosophers. All very complicated stuff. So perhaps this porridge is too hot for most people. Most people do ponder the big why and how questions of human experience as they live it but they are easily distracted by day-to-day living. Paying their bills and socialising with others. Sports/tv/relationships/job(if not in science or philosophy) etc etc easily distract from philosophy and science. So perhaps their porridge often gets too cold too quickly.
Many scientists can balance their lives pretty well between living the human experience and progressing towards new knowledge.
They contribute the most in my opinion, (although there is also the massive impact of the political world) towards the hopes that I see in children. Hope that the generation responsible for bringing them into the human experience will provide them with more options and a better life than that experienced by them. The antinatalists would say to the children that it would be best for them if they never had been born and they would call their parents immoral for having them. This is why I suggested that the glorious hope for the future that I continually witnessed in the thousands of children I taught over my career dissolves antinatalism into the puddle of putrification that it is. I would also emphasize to you again that sensible population control has very little or perhaps even nothing to do with antinatalism. All I was trying to do was connect together some of the recent exchanges between us, nothing more exciting than that.