I can't work out what this means. Sorry. — Tom Storm

Power as in physics (physical sense and quantified). In reality the kind of power we talk about in terms of personal control and agency is often misplaced as being a quantity in the same said sense because that is just how language functions.

Less power now may mean more in the future and therefore less power is better if we're looking to increase our power - which I argue against as a dead certainty given that with power comes freedom and responsibility.

If power tends to corrupt then how much of it? My point being there isn't much meaning in the manner people throw the sentiment around (irrespective of the actual original source). People believe power is just what instigates corruption and nothing more. That is why I say it is a superficial view.

Basic survival through cooperation.

This is basically the root of the difference …

Having a comparatively large forebrain that enables counterfactual thinking, planning and predicting, human animals learn to prevent behavioral conflicts which we humans foresee and attribute blame to those who cause or exacerbate such conflicts. Nonhuman animals that are not endowed with human-level foresight, however, cannot prevent behavioral conflicts and instead, IME, by instinct, react with fear or disgust, aggression or play, immediately to corresponding behavioral cues from one another. — 180 Proof

Might help to think about cold water having a certain solid state and asking why it is solid when other water is liquid. At base it’s still ‘water’.

Empathy is a feature of more social animals and ‘morals’ require forward thinking and planning (not instinctual habit for survival - burying nuts etc.,.).

I’d also say that I think stating we ‘need’ ethics/morals is like saying we need ‘arms’. We don’t, but they are pretty useful don’t you agree?

How are morals/ethics useful? How can ethics/morals cause problems and be a burden? Generally I believe this boils down the same thing quoted above. Humans have a more expansive cosmological outlook so interactions with fellow humans and interacting with the future makes morals/ethics a useful ‘tool’.

Ah, but now did you not just do the same? — Outlander

Whatever you wish. Not interested thanks.

You just did it yourself. It is silly to define what you mean then ask for a definition of what you mean.

ALL terms are context dependent. There is no ‘universal’ meaning that isn’t subject to differing interpretations due to differing subjective and contextual items.

I recommend putting a bit more thought into your OP’s or just reply to other threads instead for the time being.

Surely you can come up with something better than that?

Humans are both good and evil. How would we know either if we weren't both?

SO superficially ... YES. But that isn't all humans are anymore than a human amount to just being a creature with four limbs.

Reminds me of 'Behold a human!' Nah, plucking a chicken doesn't make it human and defining a human as either evil or not is just as silly.

What Banno said.

I'd also add that it makes sense for people to attempt to understand what someone else means rather than categorically say they are 'wrong' when it comes to judgements like this - which are often personal.

I've had an issue with people telling me that I was using the term 'belief' in the wrong way and that there was one common meaning. They fell silent after I quoted several different definitions used by philosophers over the ages.

Another loaded term is 'faith'. All I ask is that people try and ne generous in their interpretations and perhaps ask for clarity rather if they believe something sounds stupid/wrong/insane.

Fair enough. We have no written records to go off so archeological evidence is pretty much all the hard evidence we have. Various artifacts and sites cannot really divulge much about how people lived, but they can suggest many different things.

One common occurance throughout the history of interpreting artifacts is that we constantly make biased assumptions - usually because we assume certain things we do now as 'the norm'.

This seems to be more supportive of your view:

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/aegean-prehistory/lessons/lesson-11-narrative/#l11d

For myself, anyone questioning Renfrew is putting themselves on the line as Renfrew is a very steady hand.

Also, even though this points more toward the 'elites' having more selfish goals it doesn't then make humanity worse only bring out into the open a natural tendency. I don't agree one way or the other but I do know that in the modern world many people assume wealth is a result of selfish ends rather than reciprical cooperation. Again I would not hold to such a simplistic view in a stand alone sense as such reciprocity would have to insular in some fashion rather than universal - intent aside!

You may find this interesting: https://blog.degruyter.com/ancient-ukrainian-megasites-might-have-been-the-worlds-first-cities/

I was talking about how ‘civilisation’ can and is defined within the fields of anthropology. I do know. There is not an absolute consensus.

It’s a bit like the ‘all swans are white’ point. We cannot state something with such certainty when there is scant evidence/history. Added to this we carry around numerous modern assumptions about ‘how humans live’ based purely on how we live now. We cannot really do much about this other than try and guard against and highlight what possible assumptions we may be making and such assumptions influences our perception of said matter.

The problem with comparisons of modern day hunter gatherer groups with prehistoric hunter gatherer groups could well be irrelevant.

They do okay. They live lives with ample free time, but not as much as before. The amount of effort some peoples have to put into basic sustaiance is quite high in some places though, plus if they’re cut off from the modern world they are commonly infested with all manner of parasites.

Note: In prehistory there was undoubtedly more interaction between groups whereas today such groups are more insular due to the encroachment of the ‘modern world’ and the reduction of fellow like groups.

YOu are assuming people cared about 'wealth'. This is to impose a modern day mindset on our ancestors. Something all too easily done.

There is evidence (somewhat anecdotal) that 'prestige' was more important. Putting on a feast for other tribes rather than being viewed as a display of wealth was more accurately viewed as a competition of sorts where one tribal leader would try to outdo the other. The idea of 'material wealth' is much more of a modern concept and may very well be tied into the onset of sedentry living and farming (a very old topic in anthropological circles - The Birth of Inequality).

There is evidence from Turkish sites (Göbekli Tepe) that points to a complex society that doesn't appear to have been farming at all. There was clearly a very well established community of various human tribes and it goes without saying that the work they put into constructing/producing what I would call works of art is not exactly something we would assume to be 'uncivilised'.

To be clear I am NOT assuming they were civilised only using some conjecture about what we define as being 'civilisation'. Some people insist that 'writing' is what makes a 'civilisation' but there are unseen forms of writing that people miss (ie. quipu from the Inca Empire).

Note: I don't vie wit as a 'mistake' either. It is interesting to discuss and look at how the onset of agriculture has changed the face of humanity, and it is fair to muse about what we may have forgotten/left behind. I could argue the same for the written word as there is some interesting study into the area of mnemonic techniques and knoweldge passed down through mythos.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not. A complex social strata doesn't necessarily have to have farming ... we don't have any clear instances of this but that doesn't necessarily mean they have never existed.

This is the anthropological view. We CANNOT assume that it never happened or could never happen.

Yes, perhaps, but the important part for abstract thinking, upon which all art and science depends, namely the frontal region, has grown tremendously, while the evolutionarily less important parietal and occipital regions have shrunk. — Michael Zwingli

Brain size doesn't dictate brain power. There is obviously a loose connection. The cranial size doesn't tell us about how compact and interwoven the actual neural networks are. A skull doesn't tell us anything like the whole picture when it comes to brain power.

You're wrong. We assume this but we don't know it for fact. I'm not denying that they don't go hand in hand BUT I am stating that it is not always as simple as we first assume because with prehistory we're relying on artifacts alone not documented history ... another element that some consider as a sign of 'civilisation' (mythos and folklore don't count as 'history' written for histories sake.

Like I said, there is nothing to say a 'civilised' society couldn't come into being based on a hunter gather lifestyle. The main issue would be sustaining a larger population.

Of course there is the view that some form of complex economic record keeping plays into the idea of what a 'civilisation' is - be this with common writing or other forms of symbolic representation like quipu in the Incan empire.

Generally though a 'civilisation' is just a body of people organised into complex social strata with more skilled-labour being a major hallmark.

Defining the term it's cut and dry. There are many gray areas. A big problem is some people get caught up in arguing what the term means rather than focusing on what they were originally interested in :D

Here the question posed is basically 'Is agriculture a mistake because it has led to a disparity in wealth?'

I think that is a rather myopic view because it fails to take into account anything but the idea that agriculture caused some kind of social tyranny. In the cosmological sense I see the habits of humans to be one of controlling our surroundings in order to reconcile our sense of 'World'. We draw a line in the sand and 'claim a space' in order to experiment within it and see what kind of control we can inhabit within the space. An extension of this happens as we come to appreciate what we gliby refer to as 'time' now and through that insight we can plan and act upon the natural world wilfully.

In a purely biological energy sense we paid for our lack of strength with a more energy thirsty brain. This brain has paid off as we can expend little energy by acting in concert and by manipulating the world around us (fire helps us digest food more quickly and happened to kill harmful parasites too). A lot of what we do exists because it has benefitted us in some way (known and unknown).

Referring to another thread it is in these kinds of areas that Critical Theory is of use in reexamining possibles. The danger is getting carried away by them.

One theorist (maybe in Against the Grain--not sure) proposed that agriculture was not intended to make life better for the farmer; it was intended to make life better for those who controlled the farmer. Capturing labor for economic exploitation would have had to wait until agriculture was developed well enough to produce a surplus for the new exploiters. Getting from the first bowl of oatmeal (so to speak) to the first grain collection bins may have taken several millennia. — Bitter Crank

Whoever that theorist is I imagine they know next to nothing about anthropological studies in this area. Agriculture is a group effort and I cannot imagine that farming began through dictatorship given the amount of effort that must be invested. It looks far more likely to have be a cooperative group effort.

I doubt it was an overnight revolution either. In sites of the earliest known 'buildings' there is good evidence for social gatherings between tribes/groups. Great amounts of labor were needed to construct such artifacts and so food would be needed ... it kind of makes sense that either they started building due to having the free time to do so OR that they made the free time to do so and set aside resources (food) for such events.

I doubt there is a singular main explaination either. Obvious factors would involve happenstance, climate change, religious ideas and sendentary living (which almost certainly went hand in hand with the onset of farming).

Since agriculture would seem to be a necessary condition for civilization, I can't see how it could be one of civilization's mistakes. — Janus

Not exactly. There are exceptions. Generally a complex social heirarchical strata is what defines a body of people as a 'civilisation'. If a hunter gatherer society could sustain a large enough populace then there is no reason why it couldn't be considered 'civilised' (so to speak).

HAHA!! :D

The nihilistic tendencies of youth ;)

Science begs to differ.
If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.

I believe that emotions and desires don't define us, our intelligence does.
A murderer has reasons to do crime, he did it because of his desire to kill or emotion.
Whereas if he just used logic, he would have come to the conclusion of killing someone. — Kinglord1090

No it doesn't.
Unsubstantiated claims are just that.
What you believe is not evidence of anything.
There are many possible logical reasons for killing people. Have you heard of psychopaths and their regard for other human beings? They have no regard for them.

I would recommend reading up on Antonio Damasio and his contributions to the cognitive neurosciences. In fact, you're probably good reading ANY scientist invoplved in the cognitive sciences to come to the understanding that 'emotions' and 'logic' are NOT mutually exclusive items.

Have fun :)

I had a conversation with a guy a couple of decades ago. He was citing increased longevity over time. I pointed out that it was my understanding that decreasing infant mortality made up the lions share of that. — James Riley

You were completely wrong. Longevity is increasing - the same trend is seen where child mortality has remained constant. The data is pretty clear in this regard. We are undoubtedly living longer and longer on average and it isn't due to healthcare or healthier living as far as we can tell - because we are not exactly living healthier lives. It is a puzzling phenomenon and it is exponential in growth. You musty have heard scientists say that if you were born in the 2000's you're likely to live to 100.

It is probably something to do with a more species wide phenomenon that can be observed in other creatures from time to time. For some reason some creatures physically alter due to certain population limits. I wouldn't be at all surprised if humans acted in kind of the same manner (even though the mechanisms remain a mystery). Think of it like each human cell seemingly 'knowing' how to read the DNA coding and produce a fingernail cell rather than a neuron. Blow that up and think of each human being as a singular 'cell' with the species. Once a certain threshold is hit a new stage kicks in.

Given that CRISPR is on the horizon we will be pretty much able to live for ever - barring accidents and such. Diseases will be eradicated by CRISPR as will (almost certainly) what we currently regard as the human race ... we're going to recreate ourselves genetically and who knows what the results will be.

Note: It is okay to point out unexplained phenomenon. Examples of this are strewn through human history with the miasma theory of disease - which had some relation to mosquitoes living in humid climes. It took some time for people to figure out the it was the mosquitoes rather than the weather.

t brings to mind a sign in a bar just off the Shoshoni/Paiute Reservation. It said something to the effect: "We hunted and fished and crafted and sang and danced and had sex all day. We paid no taxes and the women did all the work. The white man showed up and figured he could improve on that." — James Riley

Generally speaking the lives of hunter gatherers was pretty brutal from what we can tell - and 'modern day' hunter gatherers are not exactly living to a ripe old age in perfect health (even though 'modern day' is not equated to actual prehistoric human lifestyles so not much of an argument there either way). There was likely a Golden Age of sorts where humans had plenty of freetime between basic sustainance, yet disease, parasites and general interhuman brutality were not exactly non-existent.

It could be argued that in our modern societies life seems harder than it is because we have it pretty easy for the most part - as in acquiring salts, sugars and fats.

There is also the issue of how our physical well-being has deteriorated from more physical life styles. Our diets have almost certainly impacted our physiological status ... how? We have limited data and not exactly a comprehensive understand of epigenetics and how the interplay of species and environment can shift in relatively sort spans of time.

The Birth of Inequality is a pretty well argued topic in anthropology. The issue of unearthing such matters proves difficult due to too many extrapolated fields of research that act contrary to each other rather than together (anthropology, psychology, neurosciences, biology, econmics, etc.,.).

I wanted to start with quite a controversial argument I imagine which is to suggest that the discovery of agriculture is one of civilisation’s biggest mistakes. I will set out some of the main reasons why but the main one to start with is the fact that it created surplus and with that the idea or concept of wealth. — David S

I think it is easier to argue that agriculture is the reason for human civilisations.

Surplus would merely free up time for human cultivation - ie. free time and the pursuit of self-improvement (or simply scientific study, politics, mathematics and other interests).

Agriculture led to larger populations and better standards of living as far as we know (meaning medicine, education and cooperation). Basically I don’t see the negatives outweighing the positives. It is certainly intriguing to look at what we may have lost along the way though.

I don't understand your comment? Asking for a definition for the sake of clarity isn't asking someone to defend anything.

I was just trying to get at all too often people talk cross purposes in this area as there are different sections within Critical Theory that offer up quite different uses of the term 'power'. I don't see how viewing Critical Theory through any one particular lens does anything but damage without the context of myriad possible 'other' lens - none of which can be measured empirically to any degree.

Note: I don't think it is an entirely futile exercise. It is good for flexing the mind and seeing what you may not be thinking about from time to time. As a potential tool of skepticism it is more useful than not.

I’m guessing he means ‘reasons’ based on ‘learnt observations’. Reductionist perspective of what a ‘fact’ can be or is.

@Janus You like monads I take it? You cling to ‘essences’? Some ‘pure form’? If not then explain your view regarding ‘truth’/‘fact’ please. I’m interested to hear.

@Olivier5 Are you viewing ‘observe’ as ‘experience’? I find it difficult to see your point (or if there is one).

Sure, the items of accuracy and truth are connected. That isn’t saying much though. I cannot ‘observe’ 1 yet I can say 1+1=2 is a specific fact of basic addition. A Concrete fact could be that the Sun rises everyday, yet from another perspective this could be regarded as silly because the Sun doesn’t ‘rise’ it merely appears to rise. Observed from a particular area of Venus the Sun it merely there in the Sky.

From here we can of course argue further that ALL such items are merely Abstractions. So, there you could push home a reductionist argument of what constitutes ‘fact’ in pure terms of ‘observation’. My only question would they be to what ends? What can/do you/we achieve by shifting our perspective thus? Or is it just ‘for the hell of it’ so-to-speak (fine by me).

I'd say Critical Theory in general is, well, too generalised and open to interpretation.

The social sciences at large are probably trying to be too specific rather than wide reaching into other fields that they clearly overlap. Any social scientist not knowledgable about anthropology, mathematical modelling, poitics, psychology and philosophy, is going to end up fighting in an imaginary corner.

I would ask anyone who feels a strong inclination toward Critical Theory to give an explicit definition/s of what exactly is meant by Power and how Power can manifest. Then as a follow up I'd ask what brings Power into social existence and whether or not Power is an inevitable social structure we have to work with rather than beliving it is something that can be destroyed and/or reimagined (I get the impression from many that nullifying Power is what the y secretly wish for, so that is why I ask what it is to them/those that think this way).

Defense mechanism and insecurity most likely. The example of 'women' in particular is something people are ready to take offense by because the current political climate warrents a heightened vigilance for sexism due to media outlets and youthful naivety.

In general I can understand why you mentioned women in particular, but you certainly aimed the question in a more general sense so I responded to that.

I find it annoying when women seem to think so highly of themselves when in truth they don't look that great in my opinion. I find overconfidence keeps people from communicating and really getting to know one another. Is there a purpose for thinking so positively and absolutely about ones appearance? — TiredThinker

I find this annoying in either sex. Some people can pull it off though usually with comedic insincerity :) Often 'overconfidence' in this sense is not sincere at all - more fun poking than arrogance.

I have found a lot of people who are considered by people to be 'physically attractive' often don't know it because people tend to focus on their self-perceived 'negative' features.

In bold ... other than obvious items, like our tendencies to make assumptions at face value, it is just part of emotional maturity. Some peopel develop faster than others and some people probably have a lesser 'capacity' for suich development.

Does such a thing prevetn people from getting to knwo one another? I don't really think so. If people are highly judgemental then they tend to paint a picture of someone fairly quickly and fairly inaccurately. That can be a big issue because the 'first impression' does make quite a difference and is hard to overcome if one is 'emotionally underdeveloped' or numerous other things to boot.

Confidence is probably one of the most attractive attributes individaual humans possess. Like anything too much is too much. Returning to 'judgement' there is also something to be said of people throwing out their 'opinions' of someone ... why? To flatter/seduce? This can make us uneasy too. If someone stopped me in the street and said they liked my dress sense or eyes, or whatever, I would assume they are trying to sell me something. As is often the case the context is paramount.

The exceptions to generalised rules are usually more interesting than not :)

Nice. I'm just not keen on the terms 'Goods and Services' ... too vague fo rme and too much relation to $$$$

We do. We place value on everything within the social world we occupy.

Not sure if I even have the stamina at this point. Just try to read through the thread. — Caldwell

Absolutely no intention in doing so. Not interested in laziness. Sorry.

bye bye

Is this the litteral meaning? — Thunderballs

Yes. The term 'goods and services' is a very broad one that covers ALL resources material (Iron ore or clothes) or otherwise (labour, knowledge or arts).

The layman usually see it as about money and nothing else. money is merely the generic device of measuring value within a group of goods and services distributed.

Growth is measurement of their increase. — Thunderballs

Per person. Increased goods and services (as in Economic Growth) is based on growth per person.

If there is less to go around then there is less to go around. If there is more to go around then there is more to go around.

Economic Growth is a rough measure of the avilability of goods and services avilable to everyone.

Generally speaking where there is economic growth there is more availability for everyone. Problems arise with inequal distribution, but more problem arise with simple lack.

Don't forget that ECONOMICS is at its heart about distribution of resources

No idea what you're talking about so next time don't write in a rush.

I recommend editing the OP :)

I don't understand what this thread is about? We have, and will always, keep on keeping on. I'm sure some people are not 'supportive' about everyone using computers ... so what?

I don't get what the OP is trying to get to here.

I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t. — Antinatalist

Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world.

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English. — Antinatalist

It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society.

But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian. — Antinatalist

Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!).

I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about.

I think we think same way at many topics. — Antinatalist

Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.

Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.

There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history.

Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)

Done here TRULY :D

'Depriving' is the same as 'denying' basically. Both work fine ... I don't think they work for non-existing entitiesd though, but hey, if you do so be it. If that is a problem then you may not be taking the meaning/s of 'rights,' 'consent' and 'good'/'bad' seriously enough.

I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances. — Antinatalist

You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see.

Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)? — Antinatalist

Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:

'Does something have precedence over nothing?'

This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.

In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree.

The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.

To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes.

With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.

Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless.

"Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).

We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world.

I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).

WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?

I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.

We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.

Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.

It's been useful to me. Good thread :)

@Antinatalist Your summary is incorrect. I've stated this in the last post I made yet you've interpreted it some other way. I think it's only fair to reiterate ...

1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them.

2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).

My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind.

I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice).

If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;)

3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D

4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:

You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure. — I like sushi

I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go).

FINAL point before we part ways for now ...

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. — Antinatalist

Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).

FIN :) see you around

@Pop My mistake? I thought you stated you wanted to 'publish' something. Either you editted that out or I'm confusing this with something else?

If you are wishing to publish this in some manner then this isn't really up to scratch regardless of the audience you're aiming at. If you want critique in that area I can give it. For philosophy forum anything goes really.

Either way have fun with it :)

You're failing to address what expressions of consciousness are not 'Art'. Stating that art is an expression of consciousness is not telling me what expressions of consciousness aren't 'Art'.

Also, be careful distinguishing between (or at least addressing as clearly and concisely as possible) the act of producing art, viewing art and objects regarded as art (tied into the former).

@Pop I don't really see much here tbh. I would suggest putting forward other philosopher's definitions and thoughts about 'Art' and pointing out their limitations.

Once you've done that I would also suggest getting across what isn't 'Art'. The way you've put it - about 'consciousness' - just leaves me asking what 'expression of consciousness' means here compared to just plain old 'consciousness' ... that should only be dealt with at a later time once you've gone over definitions and thoughts that are already out there today (check aesthetics).

When you've done that I'd be interested to read what you've got :)

Perhaps asking what the aim of 'morality'/'ethics' is would reveal some misinterpretations?