I'd maybe accept evidence of my dog trying to comfort me in a strange almost empathetic way when I myself am feeling Existential dread or anxiety. I could maybe accept as evidence, wild animals who save other animals from death. Including saving us. — MSC

I dont think animals displaying empathy is the same as existential dread. Theres a lot of equivocating and I think there are whole areas of cognition, only humans have capacity for. No I'm not going to provide articles that prove animals dont ponder their existential situation :roll: anymore than i need a paper to prove humans cant breathe underwater or fly naturally.

This whole tangent isnt even about the topic which is the fact that we can resent every action we have to do in the course of every or any day. What does that tell us?
@Sir2u And this is not the same as preferring more optimal outcomes. I can outwardly show behavior that indicates that I don't like this food as much as another, let's say (eat it more slowly, unpleasant facial expression, etc.) and can then point to food I do prefer. That is not the same as literally resenting the fact that I have this need to eat, and this need bothers me in the first place. One is very contexted to situation, the other is an existential understanding of my position as
a being who has to need things. That is what I thought to be an obvious difference to something like a dog preferring a certain type of food versus a human being able to comprehend the situation of living itself.

One thing I would appreciate you so much for is if you can justify one thing for me. Why do you think it is immoral for you personally to not have children? Is it just that you think everyone should not do it or is there more to it than that? What are the personal reasons in your eyes. I might not agree with them, just to warn you. — MSC

It would be the same reason for anybody- not to unnecessarily create the conditions for necessary and contingent suffering which will inevitably befall a new person.

- as for the question of resentment that was still not stated in your OP, but you have since shifted the discussion from "dislike" to resentment - compelling evidence observed that some animals have a capacity to feel resentment and other complexities which refutes your claim otherwise. It seems that animals experience things with less persistence/duration, but still have the capacity and do experience complex emotion but lack the ability to ruminate or philosophize (at the highest current degree - humans) - which to my mind, is not a requirement to experience extreme dislike i.e., OP. — Cobra

Can animals have thoughts of an existential nature? That is the gist of the thoughts I am discussing.

Again, this debate of animal communication is not really the debate I am having. Can a chimp discuss the details of Kant's view of metaphysics, or whether today's political climate is crazy? No. Resenting doing the very activities that keep us alive, make us more comfortable, and entertain us, in other words, existential matters, seems to be in the realm of humans. No I have not talked with a penguin to see if this is the case, nor have I dialoged with a koala to see their take on the matter.

But here's the thing MSC, even if you or sir2u is correct.. that would just strengthen the underlying claim.

If there existed a gorilla that in their own self-reflective way "said" to itself "I fuckn' hate stripping these leaves all day to eat", a chimp who said, "OH man, just another day of chasing this monkey to smash its skull in so I can eat it.. such a grind, why can't there be another way?" That just means more creatures in the same boat.

They are probably more bored than you or I. — MSC

Woeful anthropomorphizing. Bears might get "bored", but to compare a bears' boredom to ours would be to not take into account what makes one species "bored" over another. You must take "bear phenomenology" into account and not over analogize. [As a side note, I wonder how many times the phrase "bear phenomenology" has ever been written?]

Which means they also have some concept of fun. — MSC

They have experiences of fun. It may be harder to claim they have a concept of fun. There are literally whole areas of study in philosophy, that concentrate on what concepts area and would take us years to unpack all the literature, but it can be argued that abstractions of a sort like "resentment" (NOT to be confused with anger, sadness, etc.) are only present in linguistic-type, semiotic thinking. There is a sort of "knowing of the situation" and a cultural context and mental representation which it is embedded within. It's like claiming, "that bear is being really haughty towards that other bear". I don't think that would apply in bear context. These are concepts and abstractions that are based on certain modes of living in the world. It's "What it's like to be a human" phenomenology.

My conclusion is this;
You can't speak another animals language, whether you're human or not, if the language is conveyed in sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch. Then how in the hell would you or anyone else know whether or not animals pass complex or abstract concepts between each other? Do dogs not maybe learn how another dogs day was by sniffing each other out, or even how yours was? If I got 26 different perfumes could I not tell you a story, in Scent-English just by waving a series of silk clothes in front of your face, in the right order after teaching you which scent applies to which letter of the alphabet? I could even add punctuation Fragrances. It would be hard to learn at first but that's no different than learning how to write. It's just a matter of conditioning. — MSC

This is just all forms of anthropomorphizing. Dogs do get information, but to then impute things like "how each other's day was" is to combine human-like conceptual thinking into an animal-behavior. Dogs do understand things about each other, but not in a conceptual way (and by conceptual I mean the linguistically generative way humans do). When does this just become absurd? If you want animals that act like humans, watch a cartoon.

The topic was about the ability of animals to reason, which I certainly do believe a lot of animals can do rather well. — Sir2u

See, that's where I think you went off on the wrong track. The premise never stated anywhere a claim about the ability of animals to reason. I did say that we are the only animals that can resent almost any moment. That is a huge difference. Resentment to me, takes a sort of indignation which arises only in a certain kind of cognition (not saying if you don't have this, you can't "reason"). And just like using a computer, reading, using a car, wearing clothes, etc. takes a certain kind of culturally-based, linguistic-based, conceptually-based type of cognition (like a humans) so too resentment takes this kind of cognition. This does not negate other animal abilities to plan or reason at the level they are able to. Nor does it negate other animal abilities to have preferences of a sort.

Why would a wolf want to invent a house? They already know how to make burrows to live in. Are we to ascertain from the fact that no wolf has ever built what we consider to be a proper house proof that they cannot reason.

Would you consider the fact that birds build their nests in power distribution towers to be a reasoned action, an instinctual action or a simple possibly stupid mistake? — Sir2u

So this to me is all a tangent. Wolves cannot build houses (though they can blow them down in fairy tales apparently.. only if pigs live in them :smile:). I have said nothing to indicate that because animals cannot do X activity/mental function that means they cannot reason. You have asserted thus, unnecessarily.

We could work toward making the world a better place, a place where pain needn't be a part of our lives at all. — TheMadFool

Using people to get to this far off better place, which may never actually be anyways, is not moral. Yet not procreating a new person does harm to no one. So this would not be a viable alternative, if you indeed didn't want to do things like use people or not cause unnecessary harm (for whatever reasons, even if it comes from the best of intentions).

Can you provide a complete, accurate, description of our world without including happiness? No, right? For antinatlists to make their case they have to demonstrate, prove, that every waking moment of our existence is a living hell. That, as of yet, isn't the case. Sorry. — TheMadFool

So you aren't looking at @Zn0n's point. That is that even happiness is a sort of deficit, as the "not having happiness (or pleasure)" is itself a harm. Thus this whole need-cycle can be circumvented itself.

You're not factoring in the dynamic nature of the world - things change, we will, and in this potential for change there's the possibility, no matter how small, that the future won't be simply a perpetuation of the dismal conditions, antinatalists are so eager to point out, that characterize our past and future. — TheMadFool

But you admit: "no matter how small". See above about "using people" and their inevitable negative experiences for some far off better future.

Me: We don't want to suffer because we don't want not to exist. So, to say that we shouldn't exist doesn't make sense for the reason that suffering implies that we don't want not to exist. Antinatalism is a contradiction: We don't want not to exist (that's the reason we suffer). We shouldn't exist — TheMadFool

This whole scheme/strawman you set up here just doesn't fly. The "not wanting to die" itself is a fear, a negative experience. The evolutionary reason for physical pain doesn't make it any less of a negative experience. Creating that very fear, and the very pains that go along with our evolutionary machinery, itself does not have to be created in the first place. Fearing death is a non-issue here. It has nothing to do with not creating suffering in the first place. Not being born and not wanting to feel pain or fear of death are different things and you are (purposely?) equivocating it.

I simply love how the antinatalists in this debate are behaving as if the antinatal conclusion is and always was self evident. — MSC

It is evident when thought through, but that doesn't mean it is instantly recognizable. There is a difference.

It most certainly is not and it seems that you all try to derive your own pleasure at assuming you are all so clever while calling everyone else stupid and sadistic for not allowing themselves to be manipulated by your circular logic and self referential, self congratulating egos. — MSC

This seems just ad hominem.

If any of you really cared about reducing suffering, you would be kinder to others and wouldn't try to figuratively jerk each other off in an attempt to shame people for being alive and doing what literally every animal does. — MSC

I actually advocate Schopenhauer's idea of recognizing everyone born as "fellow-sufferers". We all suffer and we can recognize this in others and try to sympathize and empathize. We can attempt to relieve that suffering as much as possible through compassionate acts, whilst knowing it never ceases in a metaphysical way (i.e. Will in Schop's terminology). Beyond Schop though, I had an idea of forming "Communities of Catharsis". That is to say, communities of like-minded people who can discuss their rebellious stance, their worldview, can console each other, etc. There is catharsis in consolation with others. It would be okay to gripe and complain without people saying, "No pain, no gain buddy!!" or 'Think of it is a chance to grow" or simply "Stop complaining! No one wants to hear it!!" and other such sentiments. As stated earlier, these type of statements are either trying to ignore the problem or incorporate pain as good, so as not to have a negative view on things in general. But it is masking the situation so that it can seem justified in happening at all. It's a defense-mechanism, and a way to group-think away ideas of pessimism. Also, people tend to "You" pessimism away. If it's YOUR problem, then it cannot be circumstances of living in general. I call this existential gaslighting.

I am curious as to where you all think free will and moral responsibility comes into play in your weird little worlds where up is down and right is wrong. — MSC

Just because the popular notions of things are not antinatalist notions, doesn't mean antinatalism is somehow immoral or unsound. That would clearly be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'm not sure how you want that to be tied in with antinatalism. Without it being a debate about free will in general, if the assumption is that people are making their own decisions, then it is possible for people to decide not to bring more suffering into the world. I am not going to shame a pregnant lady or anything like that. I am not going to go about throwing red paint on people. I liken it to veganism. Most vegans will present their view, and aren't going to condemn you for eating a hamburger, even if they disapprove of it themselves. The goal is to not be obnoxious to others who are obviously following the majority idea on the matter, but to still present the view.

There is a chance to prevent all suffering simply by not doing something. At that point, one can perfectly prevent harm and not force the situation of having to "play the maze/game" onto another without any negative consequences to an individual (i.e. no deprivation of good things since no actual person is deprived).

I don't believe human life needs pain at all. It's not really in any of our control and not a single one of us is responsible for designing this diabolical maze. We all just live in it and short of suicide there is not much we can do about it. — MSC

Well that's good that you are not one of the ones who say "We need pain to justify our existence" or some such. If life is the diabolical maze, then surely we can prevent others from living it. We know there is suffering. We know it can be prevented for another. It is too late for us.

Having to do schoolwork (which with the coronavirus has had me playing learning assistant for online learning), having to throw out what little remained of a cardboard box that we had already used for multiple arts and crafts projects, not being allowed to play video games all day. — MSC

No one wants to think of their own kids as suffering. Remember, I define suffering in two ways: necessary, and contingent. Necessary suffering is never snuffed out of the equation. Contingent pain which is one of circumstances, is inevitable as well. Experiencing no contingent now, doesn't mean they won't in the future of course. Hopefully, that won't happen. I of course don't wish it on anybody.

Life simply is. — MSC

But it doesn't have to be created again and again. We know the what it entails. And by now, you should know the response to (but it also entails happiness!), if not, I present you the asymmetry.. deprivation of good does not matter, unless there is an actual person for whom this can be a deprivation.

I'd agree that we maybe callously have children. — MSC

:up:

Even if we accept an antinatal moral position to be the only good one, it is not as if that is in any way an obvious conclusion for anyone to arrive at. It's not as if every parent internally acknowledges this position and then has a kid just to piss you or anyone else off that happens to be an antinatalist. — MSC

Haha, well yes of course. I agree with that. Most people have children with little antinatalist considerations in mind. It's never for the sake of the child though. A few "fun" quotes from antinatalist, David Benatar:

“It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.”
― David Benatar , Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

“Creating new people, by having babies, is so much a part of human life that it is rarely thought even to require a justification. Indeed, most people do not even think about whether they should or should not make a baby. They just make one. In other words, procreation is usually the consequence of sex rather than the result of a decision to bring people into existence. Those who do indeed decide to have a child might do so for any number of reasons, but among these reasons cannot be the interests of the potential child. One can never have a child for that child’s sake.”
― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

Also very well-stated. Not much more to add.

Yes... what is this exactly? What is the person who uses this framing trying to do? Perhaps one could try to say they are trying to cope with pain by creating a false metaphysical narrative surrounding its identity, but deep down it seems it amounts to, as you say, an attempt at justification. I mean, what happens once we adopt this view, that is, the child had to suffer abuse "because that's just part of growing up." One is trying to justify something by this logic, one is also trying to excuse something. At the most primitive point I think it is striving for the unconditional justification of life itself regardless of the poverty of conditions. — JerseyFlight

:up: Not much more to say to this, as it makes the point well.

Yes, or just ignorant. I think we are right to revolt against this vicious ignorance with passion, such an ideology is itself abusive. — JerseyFlight

Yes.

My dogs loved climbing over the fence and running around the neighborhood. For almost a week after I put barbed wire on top of the place they were climbing out 3 of them refused to be petted and would not even come near me. They, like most kids, got over the sulks and we are friends again. Is that more instinctual behaviour?

I think that the problem is not whether they can reason or not but are we smart enough to recognize reasoning when we see it. — Sir2u

I guess I didn't mention you, but I said earlier:

To extend the point so as not to go down rabbit-holes.. I also recognize animals may have preferences. For example, wanting to be in the shade on a hot day. Liking certain foods over other ones. That is not the same as having the evaluative capacity to resent a situation that one has to do. — schopenhauer1

Also, I think your indignation is inappropriate here. I'm not sure why I'm a "speciest" because I recognize animals have different functional mental capacities than humans. There seems to be a lot of condemning here for what most other people do all the time. If I told you a dog can't do advanced calculus, or even recognize the very foundations that would make that possible, that is just pointing to differences in (other) animals and humans. If you then come back and say: "Some animals have a sense of numbers!!", okay, I can agree with that, but that wasn't my claim. That would be either a strawman or a red herring of the point (which was they cannot perform advanced calculus or cannot even begin to understand the foundations thereof). No one is denying animals have various kinds of intelligence, but to not recognize differences because you think this is a sort of bigotry, is getting on the ridiculous side and is possibly hampering your understanding of the actual argument at hand. You are throwing red herrings up on this, and you may not see it. Animals certainly have preferences. Perhaps they are even individual to the animal.. One dog likes fetch more, the other likes tug-of-war. One dog like kibble n' bits, the other likes Purina; yet another likes the fancy organic kind.

If we were to step back, can we admit that humans have certain capacities/mental functions that other animals almost certainly do not? If we cannot admit that, then we can't go much further. It's like asking, "Can we admit that humans don't have the functional capacity to fly without technology?" and you said.. that's being a bigot against humans.

Further, it is seemingly sociopathic to want to see "overcoming pain" carried out by another.

To view it from this vantage, would not merely be like putting mice through a maze full of spikes and fire, it would be like creating mice for the purpose of putting them through your diabolical maze. I agree with you, such a view is not only incompetent in terms of philosophy, it is nearly sociopathic in terms of the framing of human experience. Reminds me of the same logic one finds at the heart of inquisitions. — JerseyFlight

Yes! :up: .

But yet people talk in these terms all the time.. "No pain, no gain"; "Life is only worth living when overcoming something painful" yadayada. How is this not possibly a social pressure to try to incorporate pain as good, so as people don't fall into pessimism? Just because one is co-opting pain, and trying to turn it on its head as "good thing" so as to downplay its negative aspect, doesn't make it any truer as an actual positive thing. Rather, it just shows the kind of thinking many people engage in in order to not see what might actually be the case. It also justifies answers to why people have kids in the light of knowing the kids will face inevitable necessary suffering and contingent, unpredictable forms of adversity.

@MSC@RogueAI@Sir2u@Caldwell@praxis@JerseyFlight

I'm not necessarily "for the button" being an answer. The button would have to be able to dial in or out any amount of pain/pleasure as it relates to survival, comfort, and entertainment- not just mere pleasure. So, if I can dial in some amount of stress so I can feel the "high" of exercising, but then dial back pain as it relates to sickness, or dial in pain in regards to playing a game, but fastforward any tedium at work, that would be different.

However, one thing I observed with many of these comments, is the rather ubiquitous idea that human life needs pain so that we can have the pleasure of overcoming it. I just find this theory lacking in any ethical claim. To assume that people need to experience pain so as to overcome it, and then to go so far as to create a being who was not there to begin with to actually live this ethos out, is quite cruel in my estimation. I don't think that overcoming pain gets some gold star of goodness. This is what people say to pressure others into not having negative feelings towards the pain that they are supposedly supposed to overcome to feel like a better person. Putting people through a game unnecessarily, or because you want to see people overcome pain (or use weasel phrases that mask the negative aspect.. like "grow from pain") is not ethical. So yea, sue me.. I don't buy the very popular "no pain, no gain.. do the Dew" bullshit.

So my definition of necessary suffering is being deprived, usually based on things related to survival, comfort, entertainment. If somehow, we lived in a world where we didn't have "needs" because we were perpetually fulfilled at all times (again I don't know what that world really looks like except some sort of imaginary blissful being or more simply being in a nothing-like nirvana state), then sure that might be a world worth being born into.

I certainly don't think people should be born, to be used basically, so that there might be such a future state. I also don't subscribe to the notion that this world of pure fulfillment is somehow devoid of what it "really" means to be human. This whole trope about creating people so that they can suffer, so they can overcome the suffering is callous and cruel to cause for a future individual. Let sleeping dogs lie. Don't create drama/pain so that you can watch a person navigate through it in some social/societal/historically contexted setting/institutions.

As far as pleasure, again find it to be suspect. To say pleasure is "intrinsically good" is to not recognize that it is only relatively good in comparison to the netural/bad states. It is only "good" if temporary and usually loses its luster. So if in your supposed scenario there is a way to never lose the luster, maybe there is something there. That is not our universe though. And again, if we "need" the pleasure, then there is some residual "necessary suffering" of being unfulfilled, so there's that whole thing, thus reverting back to some nirvana or death-like state being actually the most utopian/fuliflled state. Either way, even if this world could exist, it certainly isn't this one. And to belabor the point, I don't see this universe as a magical journey to feel the heartaches, the pains, and foibles so we can be more "human" in some Nietzschan/maniacal fashion.. I think the Eternal Return scenario where you'd keep coming back to suffer as a human struggling again again, is hellish and immoral to want for others certainly.

Hm, interesting. May I know who they prey is? — Gus Lamarch

Gee it's me, the evil antinatalist.. I sense trolling :roll:

I tend to see pleasure the way dukkha does here:

I think also there's a mischaraterisation about what pleasure actually is. Seems to me the Cyrenaic (note: I've never actually read any Cyrenaic work) sees pleasure as something far more valuable or positive, or 'pleasurable' than it actually is. A kind of pollyannaism about pleasure. Take the example above, where I've written "lack of nice mouth sensations". You might argue here that "ok, the lack of nice mouth sensations is a kind of suffering we are motivated by and strive away from. But those nice mouth sensations we experience (due to striving away from it's lack, and not as the Cyreanic says; because we positively strived towards it) are actually intrinsically good."

But I'm not so sure. If the taste sensation is actually positively pleasurable (over and above a cessation of suffering, or a kind of 'flow' distraction from suffering) and therefore good, shouldn't you want to constantly sense it? I like the taste of orange juice, but I wouldn't want to constantly experience the taste. Or take bodily sensations. I know for sure if given the choice I would want to never experience bodily suffering/pains again, but would I want to constantly experience bodily pleasures? Would I want to constantly orgasm? And if not, what does that say about how pleasurable the actual sensation is? People who orgasm like 100 times a day live in hell it seems. Note that pleasure is also extremely short lived. An orgasm is like 3 seconds, one only gets 'lost in the music' for a single song, at best. Food only tastes good until it's swallowed. A heroin rush fades pretty quickly into a sort of secure numbness, which eventually becomes sickness. — dukkha

That being said.. that's how I'd feel about the machine.. However, I have said before that a utopia would be one where you can dial in as much pain and pleasure as you want. So if this included every aspect of life, and was not just a really advanced sex toy.. Sure, I'm for it. However, the ultimate version of a utopia may be not existing at all or being completely filled (what does that look like?) that one doesn't want for want ever- pleasure, or the need to move away from pain. The closest that comes is actually sleep or not existing at all really.

Yes, very good point, all these cushy biases (“what an opportunity to be alive :)”) are shielded by their own brutal, bias-like enforcer-mechanism: group-think and what strikes me as fascist tendencies (“purge the outsider, there is only the group, and the group is everything”), but “collectivism” describes this as well. — Zn0n

Yes, it is a group-think which reinforces sentiments to keep people in-line. "We all think this antinatalism business is ridiculous right??".. "Yes, we all think this is ridiculous". "Stop griping about life! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! It's all in your mind... You are choosing to suffer.. etc. etc. Any social pressure to not look negatively at the situation itself.

What I’m now struggling with regarding children is how often they scream and cry.
My neighbors created two, and one is a toddler now, and he screams and cries out pretty much every single day, often even several times. Some people may think once a day doesn’t even sound too much, but when was the last time you screamed and cried because you were in such agony.

It’s a torturous sound and I can’t help but project my own suffering that is caused by his screams onto him and think -STFU!-, but know at the same time he is in so much suffering that he screams out and cries because of it, and nobody takes it serious, for one because of how “normal” and “expected” it is that children constantly severly cry.

And I really wonder how people have more than one child. One child may be because of naivity or some the-human-race™-must-be-dragged-out-indoctrination that they fell for, but I hear their screams muffled through (relatively thin) walls, so for them it’s even worse.
And yes they get the “positive parts” of some helpless creature being completely dependent on them and can be bossed around as they see fit. But how does that balance. — Zn0n

Yep, we are in pain from the very beginning.. There is no self-regulation for babies. The unfulfilled needs are out for everyone to see, and it is clear there are a LOT of unfulfilled needs in the human animal from the very start.. But as you say, people keep having them for reasons such as you mention. It can never be for the sake of the future person itself though.

I think more accurate would be to characterize Antinatalists as in favour of absence of imposed existence (short nonexistence), not because nonexistence is inherently good, but because suffering is inherently bad, and the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist. — Zn0n

Yep, good way to phrase it.

At the same time nothing is lost because the craving for what we refer to as "good experience" is suffering too. — Zn0n

Yep. Deprivation of good, does not matter unless there is someone that actually exists to be deprived. Only once a person exists, does being deprived of good experience become an issue, it is can be argued that it is thus doubly good to prevent that (inevitable) deprivation.

And I see the starting post is as a way to start getting aware of how much of life really is bad or neutral and how few moments are something we actually would consciously chose to experience.
I don’t think one needs or should force an analogy of sleep=nonexistence and being awake=existence. — Zn0n

Yes! Thank you for recognizing that. Are people purposely taking the analogy literally as to make red herring side-tracks? Much of the day could be replaced with sleep is the point. If one looks at all the neutral or negative things that might easily and readily be replaced with sleep instead, one might find that there are only handful of any "fulfilling" things that are left throughout the day. Much of it is grinding gears or autopilot experience- all things where sleep would be easily more desired or at least if replaced by sleep, people would have no objections with.

What does that euphemism actually mean - “having the time of your life”?
That you suffer through craving something and get a release for that suffering, until you are bored again? Like being pained and obsessed by a craving to visit some special place and then finally after many months you were actually able to visit that place and get your problem that life imposed onto you temporarily fulfilled (=release of suffering), until the next craving will be forced upon you?

You can only "enjoy" something if you suffer through a craving for it, f.e. the more you crave food, the "better" it will taste. And without any craving whatsoever the same food won't taste good at all.
The "pleasure" you may(!) get is always a release of your own suffering, and if the suffering is particularly great, you may(!) get a big release, thinking you profited, when in reality, you went from -5 to -0.5 again.
The same applies to thirst and drinking, constipation and going to the toilet, the urge for sex and an orgasm etc. Dukkhas' post I linked explains it really well. — Zn0n

:up:

Something tells me this is meant to be an obvious “that would be totally bad”-option, but I really can’t see it. Wherein lies the harm in being unconscious?
There is no harm whatsoever if you aren’t conscious/suffering, you don’t miss out anything if you aren’t pained by a craving for what you then think you will miss out on. — Zn0n

Yep.

We don’t have any choice, since we have to exist and were forced into this life. — Zn0n

Yes, people confuse inter-worldly matters (e.g. being born) with intra-worldly matters (things people do once already born). Antinatalism deals with inter-worldly matters. These terms are from Julio Cabrera for reference.

Yes concentration camps may return rather sooner than later, another argument for Antinatalism.
You don't need the bandaid (paradise) if you aren't stabbing people in the first place (dragging them into life). — Zn0n

Yep.

I wouldn't worry about that though. It is in the past now and I've already apologised. The IP addresses don't match and I didn't know enough about you to really say either way. — MSC

Again, coming in with guns blazin.. But it was also discounting the fact that two people can have the same views on something controversial, and not recognizing the individual nuances in people with similar views.

To extend the point so as not to go down rabbit-holes.. I also recognize animals may have preferences. For example, wanting to be in the shade on a hot day. Liking certain foods over other ones. That is not the same as having the evaluative capacity to resent a situation that one has to do.

So I think my response to Sir2u applies here:

So as I was saying with MSC, I recognize that there are capacities in other animals that make them well suited to surviving in their environment. They may even have communication systems. The kind of thought that says, "I hate having to eat my kibble..I hate having to play fetch with this guy.. I hate having to go for a walk all the time..." seems not in the repertoire of dog psychology (or other animals for that matter). That is more-or-less what I'm getting at. Humans, on the other hand, can resent what they are doing at any moment. We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Are animals not aware of the need to acquire food and shelter? Or is it just an instinct that makes them do it. — Sir2u

So as I was saying with MSC, I recognize that there are capacities in other animals that make them well suited to surviving in their environment. They may even have communication systems. The kind of thought that says, "I hate having to eat my kibble..I hate having to play fetch with this guy.. I hate having to go for a walk all the time..." seems not in the repertoire of dog psychology (or other animals for that matter). That is more-or-less what I'm getting at. Humans, on the other hand, can resent what they are doing at any moment. We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves.

What could someone identifying themselves as antinatalist, do or say that could make you disagree with that particular individuals take on the matter? — MSC

What I said here I guess:

In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it.
— Wikipedia

That would be just as bad as positive utilitarian arguments that suggest that if it is for "the greater good" then creating pain for an individual, when this does not need to happen for the individual, is acceptable. So those brands, I would not identify with that only based on negative utilitarianism. Though my views are based on not creating unnecessary harm/suffering, it always recognizes the locus of ethics at the level of individual. This is ethics at the margins, not on a whole. Potential parents that do not procreate, prevent that future individual from suffering. That is the level I am talking about, not whole populations as that quickly turns into not recognizing the individual, and using them as a means to an ends, which is bad for any cause. — schopenhauer1

Newbie to the forum, not philosophy or these types of debates. Quantity of writing doesn't factor into your status to me. I'm sure there have been plenty of individuals here whom have contributed a lot of comments with no real qualitative substance. Not saying this is you but I've yet to read all 4k of your comments haha. — MSC

No, I wasn't saying "bow to me for my many posts", but that it was rather brazen of you to just join the forum, and then accuse a member who has been here for many years that they are doing nefarious, sock-puppet activities on the forum.

Since some moderators have vouched for you, I will take you at your word and will try to be more charitable with your views. — MSC

Well thank you, I'm glad that a newbie has accepted me as me and not some other in a forum I have contributed 4.3 thousand comments to :razz: . It just so happens you came in at the rare time where another poster is posting similar antinatalist views to mine, and is very articulate about it. I hope they stay. I've seen posters in the past who had some really good insights but then only contributed briefly and didn't stay. But anyways, I'm glad you are willing to be more charitable.

You do see why I was a little suspicious at first though right? The timing of ZnOns account creation and direct interaction with your and only your posts was strange, even if we both agree now that those things are merely coincidental. — MSC

Yes, I see how you came in when there was a new poster that happened to have the same views as mine. What do you want me to say. I'm happy to see some people who have similar views. Many posters here have people fawn over each other's views, and reiterate it, strengthen them, get the slight boost from having someone agree and elucidate more on your own views. I usually don't get much of that, so it's a nice change.

Some are insincere and only want to watch the world burn for their own pleasure. — MSC

I'm not so sure about this. I think most antinatalists are quite sincere. I think there can be a distinction made between antinatalists who are more passive (probably my views) vs. ones who get on board with things like "the benevolent world exploder" argument.

In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it. — Wikipedia

That would be just as bad as positive utilitarian arguments that suggest that if it is for "the greater good" then creating pain for an individual, when this does not need to happen for the individual, is acceptable. So those brands, I would not identify with that only based on negative utilitarianism. Though my views are based on not creating unnecessary harm/suffering, it always recognizes the locus of ethics at the level of individual. This is ethics at the margins, not on a whole. Potential parents that do not procreate, prevent that future individual from suffering. That is the level I am talking about, not whole populations as that quickly turns into not recognizing the individual, and using them as a means to an ends, which is bad for any cause.

The linguistics of bird-song is also a place where we can find similarities to ourselves. Although both
birdsong and human language are hierarchically organized according to particular syntactic constraints, bird-song structure is best characterized as phonological
syntax, resembling aspects of human sound structure. Many species of birds share with humans a capacity for vocal learning, a crucial factor in speech acquisition. — MSC

To indulge this tangent- I still think there is a difference in the language-use/function in a human vs. animal. Generally we are using it to communicate to others AND self-talk ideas/concepts. Birds can maybe communicate about surroundings, mating, territory, etc. A lot of it is involuntary. Even primates, if forced in research situations, can communicate maybe a couple hundred words, but with no syntax, and again, not very natural. None of this adds up to the kind of language abilities humans have. I wouldn't even call what other animals have language proper, per se, but a communication system. But, I don't care about the exact definition as much as how it functions. Just on a cursory search, what I'm getting at is something like this:

Human language is distinct from all other known animal forms of communication in being compositional. Human language allows speakers to express thoughts in sentences comprising subjects, verbs and objects—such as ‘I kicked the ball’—and recognizing past, present and future tenses. Compositionality gives human language an endless capacity for generating new sentences as speakers combine and recombine sets of words into their subject, verb and object roles. For instance, with just 25 different words for each role, it is already possible to generate over 15,000 distinct sentences. Human language is also referential, meaning speakers use it to exchange specific information with each other about people or objects and their locations or actions. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5525259/#:~:text=Human%20language%20is%20distinct%20from,past%2C%20present%20and%20future%20tenses.

My conclusion for this type of mental difference with other animals, is that we also have the capacity for existential thought. To know of our situation of being in "less than desired circumstances", not JUST experiencing less than desired circumstances. There is a secondary reflection that can happen due to our linguistic/conceptual/social/psychologically mental capacity.

There are shades of gray and not black-and-white differences between humans and other animals in cognitive abilities. While animals might not ponder life and death the way humans do, they still may have some sense of self. — MSC

Did you not read here when I said:

And no, this isn't about having a sense of self like the mirror test or anything like that. — schopenhauer1

I thought that took care of the exact type of arguments you were trying to make. The argument is not about animal consciousness. It is about how humans are animal with the kind of thoughts and mental functional capacity to resent a situation they are in (any/many/every in theory). There isn't doing and being, but rather knowing that we are doing and being, evaluating it, comparing it and deeming it negative, and hence resenting it. You know what, if other animals can do that, all the more pessimism added to my claim. The claim was rather for pessimism not about animal cognition, is the key here.

For the record, there isn't good evidence that Zn0n and Schop the same user. — fdrake

@Zn0n @MSC

For the record, no Zn0n and I are not the same person. I don't know who he/she is, but it's nice to have company for once that understands the arguments. Welcome to the forums Zn0n!

What's ironic is MSC reminds me of an old poster, S/Sapentia who used to flame and troll all the time. Very hostile. Hard to have a respectable conversation. Being civil while disagreeing is hard for some people. I can imagine MSC being a sock puppet of him ha.

Well the discussion was giving off a strong scent of Antinatalism, so I just had to throw the word in there. I'll try to get caught up on those 4,500 other posts when I have the time. Wow, you could have written a book by now! (Maybe you have?) Not bad for a Cardinal with a keyboard. — Bird-Up

Ha.. Just a cardinal and a keyboard here :). Peck, peck peck...

Because you totally ignored or didn't understand what I was getting at, and this is huge tangent that I wasn't even trying to debate... I just don't care enough to pursue this.

What is so special about humans, as an animal, that they and only they, have the potential to hate every moment? — MSC

Self-awareness, not just awareness. My guess is this comes about from linguistic brains.

I feel a lot of assumptions have been made in your OP, as to our knowledge of the inner emotional lives of animals. — MSC

Yep, I assume animals don't have self-awareness. I can't tell what an animal is feeling, but I know it is not the same type of awareness as human, which is generally able to have the ability to generate conceptually based, linguistic ideas, probably necessary to form the kind of assessment of a situation such as "resentment". This is not just sad, angry, and emotions like this, but the reflection about this, and its relation to things like "better", "worse", "I don't want this". All things that need linguistic formulations of some kind usually. And no, this isn't about having a sense of self like the mirror test or anything like that.

“constantly in need and want” – a definition of life.
Do you remember one moment where you didn’t needed or wanted anything?
If so (and that’s a very big ‘If’) how long did it last?
And how long did and does the opposite state last, constant need and want?
Is being in a state constantly deprived of whatever things there are, a good state of being – or a bad one? — Zn0n

Temporary cessation from wanting, if at all. Constant need and want is the through-line of life itself. Practically a definition of, from the animal point of view.

As far as good or bad, that is a question some try pose to disagree with deprivation=suffering. Deprivation just is, they might say and thus does not/cannot be given a value one way or the other. I like to answer this in terms of dissatisfaction. If we do not have something now, there is a state of unfulfillment. This to me, generally seems "bad", as we are not "whole" so to say, in the moment. As you stated, the times we are "whole", seem temporary, if at all.

“Life is empty” is a great existential-nihilist statement, though from a perspective of pessimism I think one could even say it is worse than empty, because suffering isn’t nothing, it’s negative – to adapt the picture, one could say life isn’t just an empty room, it is a sewer. — Zn0n

Yes, agreed. Good point!

I surely won’t, and I think we should be more exact on this.
There really is no single entity called ‘the human race’ but only a bunch of individuals and saying things like “humans rape, murder, birth” is this fuzzy, collectivist mindset, especially if you (semantically) identify with this collective ("we").
I don’t. And many others neither (and then there are many who do the right thing for completely wrong reasons or even accidentally).
I don’t even identify with all living humans as a group and for sure not with this concept of “the human race” as a whole.

Excuse my semantic rant, that was besides the point you made, that life is inherently a bad thing. — Zn0n

No, I actually agree here as well. In fact, I think the locus of ethics is the individual and not some "third-party" cause like "the human race", "civilization", "group utility-maximizing", etc. For example, if we had a child because it supposedly benefits X third-party cause (e.g. the human race), we have negated the individual we are causing harm to. We are causing harm/suffering to an individual, but to enhance a conceptual/group entity outside this individual. I would say it would be unethical to treat people as means like this.

You do for sure, but for how long are you really aware, and how many others are similarly aware?
There are quite some inherent human biases that need to be overcome, like the appeal to nature-fallacy (“nature is great because it sometimes looks nice, even though it’s a torturous death-colosseum”) and this brutal naivity in children – getting rid of these two alone is a very painful process to go through, and this is only what comes down to putting some glasses on. — Zn0n

Completely agree.. Don't forget Pollyanna tendencies, and group-think. If people are ridiculed for stating these things enough, it will be "picked up" from the rest of the group to also denigrate those who have this awareness.

It's funny you bring up children. I have less empathy than others perhaps on this. Yes, there is naivete, and one can say closer to "animal like' in this but there is a dark side to the child experience. The child is also less aware of how sociopathic he/she can be, not having fully developed brains. So I am not predisposed to provide a rosy view on this period in human development.

I think it is impossible to suffer and at the same time not know that one doesn’t want to suffer. — Zn0n

I can agree with this definition. Other animals may have pain/negative state in the moment, or maybe even unknowing trauma from past events, but I would not necessarily call it suffering from their point of view. Thus a distinction can be made between mere harm and suffering, which is a secondary reflection on the primary harm taking place. One has to be a linguistic animal it seems, to suffer vs. only be harmed/feel negative. Thus, the point of this thread.

Speaking of sharing, one of the most insightful posts I found over the years on the nature suffering is from here, namely this post.

The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it. — Zn0n

That is an excellent quote, and I remember it! A great example of a sort of Schopenhaurean (Eastern?) understanding of the negative view of pleasure. We are striving away from negative states rather than necessarily being driven by positive ones. The (what first seems to be) apparent "intrinsic goods" of positive states might be just as dukkha describes- a sort of cessation/distraction from the suffering. And it is suspect, as he also noted in that post, that we would never want pleasures to last more than their temporary experience of them (e.g. orgasm, the constant taste of something we liked in the moment).

The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it. — Zn0n

Please do!

**f.e. how our perception of time makes matters a lot worse, as it decelerates time down to slow-motion while we have to endure suffering - and as if that weren't bad enough already, at the very same time it accelerates it while we experience pleasurable moments, so that it basically acts a fast-forward to suffering. — Zn0n

Yes, excellent observation. Another aspect of the human animals' unique situation of suffering- not only in our increased perception of duration of suffering, but our decreased sense of pleasureable/positive moments.

I used to meditate for an hour (years ago) and it’s not all that much if you think about it, but I always had to force me to do it, and if ‘just sitting doing nothing’ is so hard and so uncomfortable (and it is!), what exactly does that tell us about our existential baseline? — Zn0n

Yep, great point. "Always becoming, but never being". If life itself was fully positive (and not negative as it actually is), being itself, would be enough. That is not life. That is not our nature.

Though to be fair, it might be because we are so addicted to stimulation through technology (including books), that ‘just sitting doing nothing’ immediately starts a (drug-like) withdrawal.
Theoretically it could be possible to overcome this stimulation-addiction, so that mere presence doesn’t pain you so heavily anymore, but I’m not sure if it is actually possible. — Zn0n

I tend not to think so. It is part of the human condition. I'm also skeptical about the "Noble Savage" trope that if we only lived "in nature" this would cure us. I think that is just lack of actual contact with hunter-gatherers in their own context. However, there may be a case to be made for your earlier understanding of time perception. Time is not commodified into exactness as it has become, so may be less of an issue. One may say that their baseline boredom requires less, technology, but certainly restlessness is part of their daily life as well. You take away their version of entertainment, that surely would also affect them negatively as anyone from a "modern" society.

But, even if it were, that we are so very prone to getting immensely addicted to external stimulation in the first place is telling in itself, and stems from suffering-avoidance for sure. — Zn0n

Yes, very true. It is a feature, not a bug.

This is another important point, I’m not sure if suffering is actually necessary for consciousness, I doubt it is, and it certainly isn’t to the degree that we have to go through.
If consciousness is forced external input onto some “I”, it is inherently unfree, but could theoretically still at least be neutral. So that makes me assume a sadistic creator even more, and I really, really hope I'm wrong with that.

(But ultimately, I found it very hard to go even near the bottom of the matter. How does suffering even work fundamentally, and how is the “I” even created, presumably out of nothing? It looks like logic doesn’t even apply there.) — Zn0n

Suffering, if defined by being always at a deprived state, is indeed necessary, not necessarily to consciousness, but to conscious life, and certainly the human version of it. You gave great examples of it.

If you could chose what to experience in life, it probably would only consist of a few minutes, maybe hours, or, at most, -days- for most people. — An0n

Yep agreed. It's amazing how much of the day could disappear, and it really wouldn't matter, or would be in fact, a relief. It's like grinding gears, that is somehow also like being on autopilot, because it's just things to maintain some sort of work related to (inevitably) surviving in a complex society, or its related to comfort, also in the context of a complex society.

But no, choice and avoidance of suffering is the exact opposite of how life works, you are forced to endure every bit of difference between “your” (imposed) target state and “your” (imposed) actual reality.

The difference between those two changes and it’s sometimes more horrible than at other times, and they even pretty much never align, and if they would or come close, it’s only very temporarily, and you are very soon pained again. — An0n

Exactly! Very on point. See my thread on The animal that can resent every moment. I liked the way you stated it: "Forced to endure every bit of difference...". Endure is a key word here.

*where does that “want” even come from? It’s another type of constant suffering inherent in being alive. — An0n

Yes, exactly! We know that we are unaligned from our (imposed) target state as we endure it. We are not only experiencing the negative state, but know we are. It is the added fly in the ointment, if you will. I call this kind of inherent, constant suffering and "want" necessary suffering, as it is built into being alive, as you say. Please share any more thoughts on the matter.

Antinatalism, anyone? — Bird-Up

:lol: :rofl: . I'm laughing because of the irony. Almost all my discussions center around antinatalism or philosophical pessimism, so thought it was funny you brought it up as if I've never heard of it haha. Look at my discussion history :smile:.

We are addicted to the pursuit of knowledge, yet we admire the ignorant. I suppose we are conflicted, to say the least. — Bird-Up

Interesting. We are always put in a position of "dealing with". Yet, we know we are dealing with. I think it's the same thing with pets like dogs. We sort of live vicariously through the notion that they are in the moment it seems, quite often.

We are never fully satisfied, and constantly in need and want. We can't stay long in boredom. We need to be entertained. We strive, struggle, deal with in complex social arrangements to maneuver. We can know every moment that we need to get something done, or something is not satisfying, or simply life itself is empty. We are the animal that knows our situation. Yet, we keep putting more people into it. We know when we experience contingent suffering- physical and emotional pain too. Both necessary suffering of striving, and contingent suffering of the external world impinging on us, we never seem to put the full picture together to realize it's life itself. It can be prevented for future generations. We can acknowledge this fact of our constant "dealings with" the world, and knowing we have to deal with it lest die, be uncomfortable, and bored/lonely. A sort of therapy is acknowledging the situation and going from there. There is nothing one can do about it, but at least the acknowledgement would a) not pretend that there is something going on that is not (some grand scheme like technology, happiness utility maximizing, or the like), and b) act as a sort of catharsis for the suffering where one can feel fine complaining about the situation and knowing others understand too.

I agree, we're the kind who never are satisfied - contentment is a word that fails to describe any one in the entire history of humanity. However, this major issue shouldn't hold us back from fixing the minor problems, right? There's the phrase "to settle for..." and we should appreciate its underlying spirit. — TheMadFool

Stuff has to get done. You have to do it or externalities will get you. Survival. You feel an itch, you feel cold, you feel bored, you feel dirty, you feel you need an extra item you are missing. Comfort. You are lonely, your mind needs something active. You need to be more "mindful", you need to exercise, you need to go on a vacation, you need to, you need to, you need to. Entertainment. It isn't going away.

I call of this "dealing with". Many people unthinkingly resent much of this but can't make the connection to being born itself. It's just too global. They have been enculturated to think just right near their noses. Hard-nosed realists, pragmatists, etc. But the problem is global. It is getting people to see that it is the problem with life itself. It is existential, not situational. Not circumstantial. It's whack-a-mole. You think you fix the problem, but it is unceasing. It is part of the structure. AND now add all the contingent suffering I mentioned.

I guess you might want to see this too.

But I suppose it's what you mean by "knowing their situation," .. What do you mean by this?

Even so, animals are capable of feeling distress, mistreatment, agony, and so forth. They are capable of "disliking every moment," like the human. Unless you mean something beyond this in a higher degree, which is why I posed there are humans that lapse out of these degrees and function at lower levels than others, or not at all. They would be "exempt". — Cobra

Knowing the situation is any time you dislike a situation you are in and know there can be a better one. It is knowing the present situation in its broader context of understanding more ideal circumstances. Generally, I would think you need a brain similar to ours, a linguistic one for this type of thing. Perhaps people don't think much about things, I would agree. They don't see the bigger picture, but they can certainly understand disutility of not being in a more optimal state. Other animals might feel pain, but they don't know to the extent of resent not being in a more optimal state.

I do agree though that many people don't consider that life is not optimal as a whole and that we should try to not procreate so as to not put more people in non-utopian circumstances. Something we can reflect on and other animals cannot, yet we keep doing despite our own possibility of this knowledge.

Yes, overcoming them is not going to be easy but, the what matters is it's not an impossibility. — TheMadFool

Necessary suffering. People are not to be used as bridges for your idea of a possible future utopia. Utopia means nowhere. The point was that it doesn't exist anyways.

However, technology will, with some amount of luck and a whole lot of sweat and toil, make our pain sensory apparatus obsolete. Just as our vermiform appendix is a vestigial organ serving only to remind us of our herbivorous ancestry, our nociceptive system will become nothing more than a curiosity to our descendants. — TheMadFool

Again, people aren't to be used for future schemes. But necessary suffering doesn't go away unless we are no longer self-conscious beings. We are beings that need to survive, get more comfortable, and entertain ourselves. In short, we are dissatisfied to some extent at almost every moment, and know of this disutility, by way of trying to change it. Necessary suffering doesn't just go away in your year 2300 scenario. Besides which, it seems like we seem to be going the opposite way than a utopia, even if we were to indulge your sci-fi tendencies. But that is a different topic for a different thread.. global warming, pandemics, pollution, overpopulation, etc. etc.

There are humans that do this very thing. Instead of doing a sort of reductionism in comparing humans to fish, it's probably better to compare philosophers to non-philosophers. Scientists to non-scientists, thinkers to non-thinkers, etc. — Cobra

I don't think anyone is exempt from knowing their situation and then having to keep going.

I think most people genuinely think they have to; in some cases, people must. I think this is a leading cause of human stressors. It isn't so much that they know they don't have to, but instead they know there are other options to the "have to" .. like laying down to rot, death, or not showing up. — Cobra

Well yes, the alternatives of dying, death, rotting, etc. are big motivators there. Rather, we can know we dislike a situation, but know we have to do it. We have evolved this consciousness which in turn can resent any moment. We can know the situation we are in, and not like it, and keep having to do it out of fear of pain and unknown.