Yes. To me the religion of babymaking is at the core of 'thetical' culture. The individual dissolves into the replication goo: hive mentality. — plaque flag

As far as human-survival, we develop strong cultural beliefs that are enculturated, but surely that can be de-programmed by other ideas. The individual does have some agency. We are working against common tropes, but these tropes are simply learned and not intractable.

I think we are indeed the existential animal.

I think we are more determined than free...while at the same time holding the notion of the responsible agent at the center of our culture. (Sartre squeeze this lemon for all it's worth : his 'nothingness' is like free will maybe. ). I am (as he puts it well) condemned to be free held responsible. — plaque flag

Sartre was against bad faith thinking, the idea that we are destined to play a role. Rather, cultural beliefs calibrate the individual to the "hive mind" so-to-say, that speaking against the core beliefs creates anger and anxiety, so we stick within its bounds. It's group-think. You can't complain too much in society, or you will be hated and spit upon. You are worse than a criminal because you reject all of it, and not just this part or that part of it.

I can't speak for 180 Proof, but perhaps you are overlooking a different perspective : The moral issue is secondary to the practical issue. We are primates 'programmed' to replicate. It looks impossible to stop the machine. — plaque flag

But we are primates who can deliberate, so are we really the same in that respect to other primates? Are we not more like Zapffe's mechanisms of ignoring, anchoring, denying, etc or Sartre's idea of bad faith? In other words, are we not also an existential animal?

Excellent. As you probably remember, I think antinatalism is fascinating. To me 'antithetical' philosophy is counterculture. Antinatalism is almost perfectly antithetical / countercultural. (Recently Elon Musk supported a tweet suggesting that nonparents should have no vote. )

I got this use of 'antithetical' from Nietzsche, and I find it useful to think of Nietzsche (in this context) as a rebellious philosophical son of Schopenhauer. — plaque flag

I heard about the Musk thing. Really weird anti-democratic stance. Nietzsche, as you may know, I find problematic as he is another philosopher used to justify self-fulfilling suffering. In other words, his idea of an Eternal Return is used to say that we are doomed to simply always exist, so attempts at something like not bringing people into existence would be futile because of the eternally repeating nature of the system, or something of this nature.

Also, on point 1 there, others will argue that creating people that can experience happiness/good things is somehow "moral" despite creating the suffering/negatives/burdens/enthalpy-fighting-entropy that goes with it. However, I do not see creating "happiness" as anything ethically obligatory, and more so when there is no one existing already. So I think that argument is also bunk. So if I was to parse that out it would be:

1) Happiness-giving is not an obligation, especially when no one is deprived of happiness to begin with.
2) Happiness-giving when accompanied by numerous intractable harms is not even purely happiness-giving. It is not a gift in the traditional sense that it comes with many burdens. Thus this "gift" is negated as such.

And finally, the rebuttal that "people don't exist to be relieved of not suffering", is simply a non-issue, as what matters is the state of affairs of not suffering. The hidden assumption is the asymmetry that the not-happiness should matter, but going back to 1 and 2.

Hey plaque you're back! Good to see you.

P1 : Human experience is bad, negative, undesirable.
P2 : We should act to reduce that which is bad, negative, undesirable.

Therefore we should strive toward the cessation of human experience, preferably nonviolently, by discouraging reproduction.

As I see it, the problem is almost always P1 (though P2 could be challenged.) — plaque flag

Yes, that is it basically. What @180 Proof wants to do is to try to make the attempt "futile" and to say that if someone doesn't exist to experience the "relief" of "not suffering", it is essentially like you are doing nothing. I don't see it that way. Rather, someone isn't suffering, and that is good (from the perspective of someone who could recognize what is not taking place).

Human facticity / adaptivity – insofar as misery needs ("loves") company, miserable bastards are homeostatically hardwired to breed more miserable bastards ad nauseam. — 180 Proof

I agree with the sentiment but contend the particular point. Are humans "hard-wired" to have children or are we a more complex (albeit still animal) that have an existential nature to it? With deliberation, we can have reasons rather than instinct. There isn't a breeding season, etc. Pleasure is good, but we regulate it all the time, or at least have that capacity to. It would be the same error of self-fulfilling prophecy I was discussing earlier to say, "We are doomed to keep the enthalpy machines fighting against entropy / create yet more POVs that feel burdens etc. so therefore we shouldn't act accordingly". That's the same post-facto justification as Buddhist's needing humans to be born to escape suffering (rather than simply not procreating in the first place), or apokrisis' systems ideology whereby we are just balancing out energy in a greater system and denying that we have reasons and choices. It's all kind of like, "Don't look at the man behind the curtain". Trying to obfuscate a deliberation with some sort of futility on a systems level.

However, I do agree that misery loves company. That speaks to this existential aspect that we are not content, so why spread discontentment? It is self-refuting to say thus, "I am discontented thus I should create people to alleviate that". Rather, the very fact of your own discontentment is a signal of the discontentment you will thus be creating. It is misguided.

On the other hand, antinatalism puts the proverbial cart before the horse by, in effect, absurdly attempting to 'destroy the species in order to save the species' — 180 Proof

This is just a kind of sophistry to make antinatalism logic look absurd. Rather, AN isn't trying to "save the species"; And the goal isn't to destroy the species. It's to not bring more suffering beings into the world. Not to create more little burdened things that need to overcome burdens. Not creating things that must continually fight entropy whilst having a POV that knows the situation they are in.

A doctor doesn't stop saving a patient because they can't save "all of humanity". They do what they can, and recognize what is in their capacity.

There's absolutely zero point in wringing your hand about the fact that you exist. You can wish all you want that you didn't exist, but the horse has, so to speak, already bolted. — Wayfarer

Questioning why we create burdens and increase our version of enthalpy machines is not a futile endeavor even if it’s too late for me. Precisely because I am living out the enthalpy does it matter most as the central question that everything returns to. Religious thinking wants you to think it’s necessary because they can’t justify it otherwise.

@Wayfarer@apokrisis@BC

Going back to enthalpy. Why is it we would want to burden people rather than quietude?

Wayfarer said “gesture towards non-being”. I do take that serious. It is good to not cause the burdens of being. Yet people keep perpetuating it. Grown adults not connecting the dots and going for tradition and selfish material or existential reasons.

What’s wrong with “nothing”. Of diminishing the amount of burdens, of not initiating another enthalpy machine to maintain. It’s like the noisy neighbors who can’t stop setting off fireworks. Burdening over and over and over because they like boom boom sounds.

The gods were pissed off from the noise of the humans and created a flood in one of the oldest written myths, The Epic of Gilgamesh. Humans can’t seem to keep their angst contained so they splatter it with noise and work and burdens and more and more people.

You are badgering me for no good reason. I answered your question. How is it ethical for you to keep burdening me with more work? — apokrisis

Now magnify that over a lifetime with no escape.

But that is quite different from your claims that life can't be fun and feel the opposite of a burden. — apokrisis

You’re dodging the question at hand. You know entropy and POVs. I am not questioning if it’s good to gift

fun — apokrisis

more if you make others deal with entropy. Fun is not the whole of entropy upon a POV.

Yeah, it wouldn't make any sense if there were no real good. — Wayfarer

You mean like higher love?

That's just misreading. What isn't constrained is what is free. The Second Law absolute forbids perpetual motion machines. — apokrisis

Yet if you admit deliberation than deliberating the ethics of creating another POVs dealing with entropy is an example of this. More existential and significant than leather or vinyl but yes, both are points of deliberation.

A systems view speaks to the balance of flow states and habits that integrate selves and their worlds. — apokrisis

That's an error to muddle deliberation with necessity. — schopenhauer1

The problem I have here is self-fulfilling prophecies. Buddhists do it when they say that humans need to be born to suffer to escape suffering. But you can just not have humans that suffer. It's suspiciously post-facto reasoning for why procreation is justified in an obvious knock-down rebuttal to the cycle of karma and samsara. It mixes up impersonal things (the cycle of suffering that is beyond human) with the deliberate (the human being who can at least not cause a point of suffering).

Apokrisis has just now written about this notion of an impersonal balance of the system, implying necessity despite the fact that humans can deliberate about things like suffering and understand the very fact of suffering. In fact, it seems ethically imperative to not throw more POVs into the entropy EVEN THOUGH, it is a necessary thing for other entities. Again, humans can at least not cause a point of suffering. Same kind of flaw of self-fulfilling prophecy, just different costumes.

More broadly, animals must deal with homeostasis, of FIGHTING entropy (decay, dissolution). But decay and dissolution sound tame if it is a rock, a molecule, a star. It takes on something different from a POV, a self-understanding POV.

Pessimism is projection. As bad as the pollyannarism it welcomes as its congenital “other”. A systems view speaks to the balance of flow states and habits that integrate selves and their worlds. — apokrisis

That's an error to muddle deliberation with necessity. No decision has to be made one way or the other. People have reasons and act upon them. As for projection, projection is simply self-involved X. Procreation is other involved. You should not muddle that either. Your happiness at X moment does not mean it is another person's lifetime of ? happiness.

surfing, dancing, gardening, cooking, procreating, and all the other ways of just having a little fun. — apokrisis

The bolded one is much different. One you are fighting your own entropy. The other you are creating another (POV!) creature fighting entropy. We want to see others fight the entropy. How strange. Just fight your own entropy. Don't pass it on. Don't assume other should fight the entropy. If only everyone had MY point of view. How narcissistic. I like X, therefore others should like live out a lifetime of X.

This was inspired by this little exchange:

The OP frequently writes on what is known as ‘antinatalism’ which is apparently a philosophy that stresses it would be better not to have been born or not to exist. Like many traditional philosophies, it sees existence as being inherently imperfect and painful. Gnosticism is another example. It sees the world as the creation of an evil demiurge, usually identified with the OT Jehovah, and the only hope being an escape from the created world and return to the Plelroma through gnostic insight.

Yet unlike the ancient world-denying philosophies modern antinatalism seems to have no conception of there being anything corresponding to the ‘release from suffering’. Existence is a mirage, a trap, a painful charade, but there’s nothing higher to aspire to. Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being.
— Wayfarer

My question to you iswhy do the majority keep on (making the mistake of) trying to make a meaningful gesture towards being? I noticed you never answered me directly but wrote generally, or to DA.

I have maintained that there is a political implication to this- that people ought to be making gestures towards being, the great IS. But why? Anything less than a paradise done on other's behalf should be justified. You cannot deny it is putting people through not only good but trials of varying degrees and kinds. That in itself means societally, and individually, it is deemed as some sort of goal to direct others towards. But, as Cioran points out, the decision, once made, is not reversible, even by suicide. So why make this choice for someone else? Thomas Ligotti called the concept, "The Cult of the Grinning Martyrs". But why more martyrs?

If you want to talk in terms of psychic energy, then Bayesian information is as close as you could get I guess. — apokrisis

Neural networks?

Your complaint is that intelligence has been dropped into the heat bath that is the Universe and is being required to do work. A planet was orbiting a star. The laws of entropy demanded that life and mind arise to accelerate the dissipation of the resulting thermal gradient.

All this effort we humans are putting in to burn all that accumulated fossil fuel. My god, what is it all for? Etc. — apokrisis

Indeed, but your systems view discounts that procreation is a choice. Ascetics exist. Birth control exists. Abstinence exists. Pessimism exists. Realism (informal) exists. Reasons exists (not just causes). There is an agenda behind every human point of view. The "agenda" of entropy barreling towards a heat death does not necessitate humans shooting out another POV into the world. Exergy from a POV is different than a rock rolling.

Exergy would likely be the better term for what you want then. Biology prefers it because it is the useful work that can be extracted by a system coming to equilbrium with its environment. — apokrisis

Or even better are still more specific measures like ascendency. This deal directly with the material closure that sets ecosystems and societies up as dissipative structures which can repair the living fabric that is metabolising it’s environment. — apokrisis

Energy is energy is energy until it has a point of view. Then it is just cruel-ty. Are humans causing other humans which need to do their little ascendencys and exergys necessary to cause? A rock rocks and rolls. A human eats and poops out its a-holes. Why the need for this?

To pretend there isn't a reason and an agenda is ignorant.

Indeed that’s @apokrisis big one.

The level of disappointment that could be generated by some amount of simply being alive and so generating the steady metabolic heat equivalent of running a 100 watt bulb?

The higher the initial expectation of a life of effortless joy, the greater the “work” to be extracted in terms of generating a sense of crashing disillusionment. Is that the ethical equation you had in mind? :smile: — apokrisis

Haha, that is an interesting take. I am thinking more on the idea of creating work to counteract the forces of entropy. Animals are fighting this all the time.

@apokrisis Edit: Looking back at your response, I think you were saying that, so yeah.

Precisely my point. It’s someone else deciding. It’s political.

The OP frequently writes on what is known as ‘antinatalism’ which is apparently a philosophy that stresses it would be better not to have been born or not to exist. Like many traditional philosophies, it sees existence as being inherently imperfect and painful. Gnosticism is another example. It sees the world as the creation of an evil demiurge, usually identified with the OT Jehovah, and the only hope being an escape from the created world and return to the Plelroma through gnostic insight.

Yet unlike the ancient world-denying philosophies modern antinatalism seems to have no conception of there being anything corresponding to the ‘release from suffering’. Existence is a mirage, a trap, a painful charade, but there’s nothing higher to aspire to. Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being. — Wayfarer

My question to you is why do the majority keep on (making the mistake of) trying to make a meaningful gesture towards being? I noticed you never answered me directly but wrote generally, or to DA.

I have maintained that there is a political implication to this- that people ought to be making gestures towards being, the great IS. But why? Anything less than a paradise done on other's behalf should be justified. You cannot deny it is putting people through not only good but trials of varying degrees and kinds. That in itself means societally, and individually, it is deemed as some sort of goal to direct others towards. But, as Cioran points out, the decision, once made, is not reversible, even by suicide. So why make this choice for someone else? Thomas Ligotti called the concept, "The Cult of the Grinning Martyrs". But why more martyrs?

Some standards can be applied to anyone, without respect to their wealth or poverty, residence in a $1,000,00 - $5,000,000 per home suburb, or stinking ghetto. — BC

Agreed.

Neither gilded suburbanites nor ghetto dwellers should engage in drive-by shootings, frivolous lawsuits, DIY justice, bribery of private school personnel, rape, public drug use, failure to recycle their empty fine wine bottles, or public drunkenness. That dog? keep it on a leash or inside a fenced yard. Throwing beer bottles into the street? Not acceptable anywhere. — BC

Agreed

it seems like people do maintain a minimum level of acceptable behavior -- or even aimed for more than that -- because even in a ghetto, people have to interact in an orderly manner to accomplish their goals -- whether that goal is drug dealing, fencing catalytic converters, getting children to school, or scrounging for food, — BC

Indeed, the problems come down to various levels of tolerance for discomfort caused by other people. There are unfortunately plenty of people who don't mind roaming dogs biting them and do look at it as if it's just a part of being in a neighborhood. There are unfortunately plenty of people who wouldn't mind various forms of music playing at 3am at night and just chalk it up to that's how it is in a neighborhood. These wildly varying ideas of discomfort are why more affluent neighborhoods form HOA's which jack up prices and create ridiculous laws. However, that's the other extreme. What amazes me is the fact that there could be such variation in people's tolerances. A collective majority of tolerances to discomfort creates a situation where the "norm" is pretty uncomfortable. You can then psychologize why, etc. But it seems one can argue that the minimum standard is simply not universal. Not sure how to go from there. There is something wrong with thinking that it's okay for other people's dogs to roam around and such. One person's big deal is another person's "What's the problem, mister?".

Do people in gilded suburbs maintain a minimum standard of behavior or better? Or, are they as likely to be inconsiderate, noisy, bad neighbors, and so on? I have little contact with gilded suburbanites, but from what I have read, they are as likely to behave badly as anybody else, but will maintain a veneer of nice behavior. If they are going to shoot you, they probably won't call you a motherfucking bitch first. Or, maybe they like ghetto slang -- I wouldn't know. — BC

Absolutely, no gilded suburbanites are a hairs width away of scratching that veneer and many would cause havoc at the drop of a hat without their overpriced HOA's. Where the ghetto mindset might be indifference and unmitigated tolerance of discomfort, the richer neighborhoods have unmitigated privilege in their expectations and will throw their monkey feces because their pickleball court is being used as a tennis court.

The neighborhood I live in ranges from stable working class to professional working class, with more upscale people living along the Mississippi River. About 10,000 people live in this neighborhood. Most of the housing is modest single family bungalows with small yards. It's a solid Democratic area. Most people maintain their property reasonably well. Off-leash dogs are a rarity. More objectionable is people not picking up their dog's shit. Driving too fast on residential streets is a problem. Lots of people display "20 is plenty" signs -- drive at 20 mph on most residential streets (it's the law). I'd say there is a consensus about what is minimum acceptable behavior here. — BC

Indeed, and none of that would matter in certain neighborhoods of less affluence (aka the more "ghetto" areas).

The kind of behavior one sees in 'ghetto' areas -- like noisier, messier partying involving large numbers of people would not be considered acceptable around here. A large party is possible, but quiet, neat, and orderly, please. — BC

So I guess the "minimum" is just not universal enough to be a self-enforced thing. Not sure what that means that the same 20 mile metropolitan area can be so varied in expectations of the minimum. The strawman or the red herring would be to pretend I am talking about the supererogatory standard, like people have to paint their houses or keep a neat lawn or something. Nope. Just the minimum idea of don't do things harmful or distressing to others. For example, it's not great to break bottles on sidewalks that children and dogs walk on, or leave tons of garbage out on the side of the street unnecessarily for long periods of time.

All very good and useful information. HOWEVER, doesn't quite get at the rest of the OP. I worded the title to be a bit more general than the OP's question.

Basically the OP is asking whether there should be a different standard, and specifically a different minimum standard on "the ghetto" as if people living in a "ghetto" have absolutely no agency. At the end of the day, it is positing that actions aren't necessarily deterministic (as you said in your initial response). That it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy to treat people as only causal figures and not agential persons. So I explain it here:

If you are living in a ghetto part of town, near concrete structures of varying dinginess and decay, near known addicted and homeless populations (not families looking for temporary relief, but more chronic homeless), etc. if you walk by a house and the dog is off leash, no tags, and it starts barking and biting at you or other dogs, it's just "that's the way it is". The owner of said dog is said to have no agency. He/she is poor, it's his culture, etc. So while not being "good", the "person" is not bad, it is more causal, and less agential. The rich man with the poor decisions deserves the wrath, and the person living in the "poor" neighborhood is just doing what he does. It's "part of the conditions".

Is there muddled thinking here? Is there self-fulfilling thinking? Is it right to think this way even (the different standards)? Are parts of cities some intangible force obfuscated by class and cultures or is it individuals making decisions based on bad information? Or do they have bad information? For example, how ubiquitious in a Westernized country is it to know that dogs can bite people and or get mistreteated if left off the leash and allowed to just roam a neighborhood? Is it unreasonable to hold parts of the same metro area (suburbs plus inner city) to the same standards as others when it comes to these ideas? Or are the cultures too far apart for individual decision making to be a factor? Is this somehow inadvertantly classist or worse, in terms of who we deem able to be accountable? — schopenhauer1

Does being "considerate" to your neighbors transcend class? Can you have two families from the same culture and class in a "ghetto", one that doesn't have cars parked in the front lawn, dogs biting people, and music blasting into the night, and one that does? When is it just "the way it is" versus, "that person is being a nuisance and is harmful"? When does behavior ever transcend class or background? — schopenhauer1

And whilst you have given a thorough response to some of the causes of the impoverished areas, it doesn't quite get at this idea of whether it is right or even appropriate to treat segments of the population with different standards.

Here is how I define the minimum standard again (not supererogatory, your favorite word..that can be for the rich man perhaps):

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios". — schopenhauer1

So it's not "broken windows" theory but broken bottles theory. It would almost be helpful if you parsed my questions out individually and answered that way to get more directly at it. Or not. But just seeing if I can direct the conversation to those questions.

I am not sure what you mean by "picayunish/pedantic territory". — Spencer Thurgood

It’s getting too in the weeds.

It’s another of the myriad problems with collectivist thinking. So-and-so is from this group, or this tax-bracket, or this identity, therefor we need to judge him accordingly. — NOS4A2

It does turn into self fulfilling outcomes it seems. It’s also oddly denying certain people have agency.

It could therefore, be reasonably argued that things like containing the animal go above and beyond that threshold depending on the owner's ability and personal decision regarding their property. — Spencer Thurgood

This is venturing into picayunish/pedantic territory but no, it is doubtful that the law would be so individualized that it accounts for each person’s perceived notion of their dog. The dog attacking is a most-worst outcome of the broken rule of simply doing the minimum to physically contain the dog. Again there’s a difference between an accident (opening the door and dog flies out) and deciding your particular dog is a great exception and you don’t need to contain them as a daily thing.

Personally, I would argue that the need to contain the dog would be dependent on the situation. For instance, if your animal has a history of aggression and you want to keep the animal, it could be argued that keeping the animal contained is necessary to prevent the dog from harming others.

If the dog does not have that history of aggression though, containing the animal might be viewed as going above the required threshold and so not be enforceable.

As you said, the devil, and I might add the fun, is in the details. — Spencer Thurgood

Sure, you can try to argue this or that exception. However, dogs are unpredictable when faced with various situations and assumptions shouldn't be made. A one time incident is different than deciding you aren't going to contain the dog because you "have a strong notion that my dog is super chill".

Then come crucial things like do you feel part of the community or is the ”community” just rich assholes who hate you. — ssu

I think this goes back to the distinction between supererogatory and minimum threshold of ethical standards:

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live).

Shouldn't all people try to live by the "minimum threshold" and find ways to meet it? To not hold the "ghetto" areas to the minimum threshold is to actually perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it is "othering" a significant segment of society to the point that they have no more agency than an animal or an inanimate object. Going back to the roaming dog, if you get bit by that dog, it would be odd to think of this as akin to a shark attack (wrong place, wrong time, just the universe and crazy natural processes). But some people might input this upon that scenario. Rather, someone wasn't just negligent (not a one time thing), but continually let their dog just roam around without a care. No attempt to keep them inside their property. That is an agent not meeting the minimum threshold. They don't need the newest fence, dog collar, lawn, doghouse for this, just enough to keep their furry friend protected and not a possible cause of tragedy. But this can be extended to a great number of things including the volume at which you play music, the time you play the loud music, not allowing yourself to litter obscenely or break glass bottles on sidewalks when done drinking, not parking your vehicle ON the sidewalk preventing people from walking, etc. Again, these aren't unobtainable for 99% of people. In fact, they are small actions and behaviors that have real effects on the surroundings. — schopenhauer1

And naturally of ownership and staus in the community. For starters, people behave differently to things and propertty if they a) own it, b) if they rent it or c) if it’s public property. Or if it’s not their property, do they know whose property it is. — ssu

There's a correlation, but its not a fixed law. You break a glass bottle on public or someone else's property, the consequence is the same no matter what (a person or animal can get hurt walking on it). Obviously, breaking a glass bottle in a dumpster is already contained. Context matters. So it's context, not point of origin. That would be some sort of genetic fallacy special pleading fallacy in ethical application.

Going above and beyond would be the collar, the tag, the fenced yard etc. as these are likely dependent on the persons ability to procure those items. In the "ghetto" for instance, the owner of the dog might not have the ability to fence their yard because they do not have a yard to fence. The same could possibly apply to the other items. — Spencer Thurgood

Correct. If you can't keep the dog properly protected and contained, then that is not meeting the threshold. Yes, supererogatory is the concept that one is going beyond the minimum ethical standards. One can be ethical but not be supererogatory. For example, if someone is drowning and you have access to a floatation device and a cell phone, there are obligations. However, if they need help writing a cover letter and you don't want to help that might not be an obligation, but if you do help you are being supererogatory. Obviously, the line is pretty grey and up for various interpretations, but simply making that distinction at least helps define the lower end from the upper end. The devil is in the details, sure.

This leads to a series of cause and effects in which the area devolves into your described setting. Rather than remove the standards, the community in this situation should be helping the individual meet the standard. Granted, not every community can take on those responsibilities and may need help from outside area, but the effort should be made to ensure the standards to prevent such situations. — Spencer Thurgood

Indeed, that's why I think it is important here to make a distinction between "minimum threshold" and "supererogatory threshold". See here:

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live).

Shouldn't all people try to live by the "minimum threshold" and find ways to meet it? To not hold the "ghetto" areas to the minimum threshold is to actually perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it is "othering" a significant segment of society to the point that they have no more agency than an animal or an inanimate object. Going back to the roaming dog, if you get bit by that dog, it would be odd to think of this as akin to a shark attack (wrong place, wrong time, just the universe and crazy natural processes). But some people might input this upon that scenario. Rather, someone wasn't just negligent (not a one time thing), but continually let their dog just roam around without a care. No attempt to keep them inside their property. That is an agent not meeting the minimum threshold. They don't need the newest fence, dog collar, lawn, doghouse for this, just enough to keep their furry friend protected and not a possible cause of tragedy. But this can be extended to a great number of things including the volume at which you play music, the time you play the loud music, not allowing yourself to litter obscenely or break glass bottles on sidewalks when done drinking, not parking your vehicle ON the sidewalk preventing people from walking, etc. Again, these aren't unobtainable for 99% of people. In fact, they are small actions and behaviors that have real effects on the surroundings. — schopenhauer1

A conservative is more likely to credit individuals with agency: they are well off because they earned it -- they were enterprising, clever, thrifty, etc. The poor are badly off because they are slovenly, lazy, stupid, and wastrels. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to attribute their good fortune to beneficial environments, and to explain poverty by attributing to the poor harmful environments. — BC

So I think this is a bit of a red herring or straw man. Or perhaps it is just framed in a way that is too black-and-white. Rather, can there not be a minimum threshold and a supererogatory threshold?

The "minimum threshold" would be something akin to the idea that "if I or my property is liable to harm somebody, or cause significant damage or distress to others, I should avoid such scenarios".

"Supererogatory standard" would be ones that aren't about harm but might be considered nice to have by some people. You make some aesthetic improvement to your property or something. While it makes the neighborhood look better, that is very dependent on income and time. These are things that have less to do with common courtesy to fellow man, and more to do with lifestyle and preference (aka live and let live).

Shouldn't all people try to live by the "minimum threshold" and find ways to meet it? To not hold the "ghetto" areas to the minimum threshold is to actually perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it is "othering" a significant segment of society to the point that they have no more agency than an animal or an inanimate object. Going back to the roaming dog, if you get bit by that dog, it would be odd to think of this as akin to a shark attack (wrong place, wrong time, just the universe and crazy natural processes). But some people might input this upon that scenario. Rather, someone wasn't just negligent (not a one time thing), but continually let their dog just roam around without a care. No attempt to keep them inside their property. That is an agent not meeting the minimum threshold. They don't need the newest fence, dog collar, lawn, doghouse for this, just enough to keep their furry friend protected and not a possible cause of tragedy. But this can be extended to a great number of things including the volume at which you play music, the time you play the loud music, not allowing yourself to litter obscenely or break glass bottles on sidewalks when done drinking, not parking your vehicle ON the sidewalk preventing people from walking, etc. Again, these aren't unobtainable for 99% of people. In fact, they are small actions and behaviors that have real effects on the surroundings.

Hmm. So if it’s you (or a loved one) who gets bitten by the poor guy’s dog, do you say, “mea culpa”?

@Jamal maybe you can kick this off.

That birth is a political decision because involves making decisions for other people?

But I also don't like pretending there isn't an elephant in the room. Philosophical pessimism reasons its way to a worldview that comes naturally, without the need of argument, to those unfortunate souls who suffer from depression.

I also don't claim pessimism is unique in aligning with affective disposition in this way. I just don't think we have a good way to talk about these connections and the need is most obvious in a case like Cioran's. — Srap Tasmaner

Philosophical pessimism is simply recognizing suffering exists and proposes what to (refrain from) do(ing) about it. It's pretty simple.

Writing can be a sublimation for negativity. So can art. So can ascetic living or meditating. I call for community catharsis. That is to say, don't gaslight with distraction, ignoring, anchoring, etc. First we must recognize the situation. Politics starts here. Is existence worth it is as much a political question as is what government is best. Why? Because all the assumptions about what others should do start at this viewpoint. If someone is born, there is already an assumption that they ought to be born for some reason.

Not exactly. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, Socrates.

The original quote could be read as a sort of paradox: if you wait until you have a reason to kill yourself, you'll have an experience bad enough that you want to kill yourself, therefore the smart move is to kill yourself for no reason, before things get bad. Quit while you're ahead. — Srap Tasmaner

Whilst I think that is a perfectly valid and correct interpretation, I don't think it can be the only one read from this.

This "argument" does not claim that you have a reason to kill yourself from the moment you're born. It doesn't even say that you are bound to have one someday. It only says that if you have one, you've already missed your chance not to, and of course that's true. — Srap Tasmaner

I think the quote implies futility because life will always inevitably have problems. If you look at the other quotes about consciousness and such it fits within a broader theme.

I'm not sure it bears analysing. Strikes me more as gallows humor, suggesting that life is itself kind of a sick joke. — Srap Tasmaner

I mean yes it's dark humor, but he wasn't just making a joke. It's from a book of aphorisms around the theme of, "The Trouble with Being Born". You can almost start any of those quotes off with.. "The trouble with being born is... In this case, "The trouble with being born is... that you can't even kill yourself on time".

Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being. — Wayfarer

But what about it? Any response that doesn’t step into the predicted rebuttals of self fulfilling idea that suffering exists, therefore we are justified to create more people that suffer? Any replies to my reply before this one?

Potential/counterfactual people don't receive any palpable benefits. — DA671

No they don’t. If you knew a child was going to suffer immensely right after birth, would you not consider preventing that? Of course you would. It’s the same reasoning spread out over a lifetime, or just “existence” for short. Being born will affect someone. The argument is not affected by the rebuttal that no one exists to experience the joy of no harm. That’s not the argument. No one exists means no one is affected, period. Someone’s being born now affects someone.

it would not be ethical to deliberately not give positives that one cannot demand before they exist. — DA671

Why?