I believe it is an error to talk about ‘consent’ for a force of nature. Not consenting to live is like not consenting that gravity keeps my feet on the ground.

The question of whether it is better to abstain from procreation may have some credit to it but even then I cannot fathom how we can say one way or another given that our scope and understanding of life is rather limited.

To argue not to have have children is an action that may or may not reduce ‘suffering’. We are in no position to say with any real authority what is ‘better’ only to make personal judgements that sit well with us as an individual among other individuals.

We do not consent to breath, nor do we think about breathing every second of the day, yet this does not necessarily mean we are forced to ‘comply’. There are certain situations where the term ‘comply’ can be readily applied but I cannot see how you can bring me to agree that ‘comply’ applies to living a life. It just does not make sense to use that term here. I can understand why you can, with some force, make it appear as wholly applicable to ‘living’ but it is just a term used loosely and no matter how hard it is forced it does not hold up for me.

I can only assume you frame ‘evil’ as ‘suffering’. If life exists therefore ‘evil’ must exist. So then, should all life be exterminated so rid the world of ‘evil’/‘suffering’ or does committing such an act (that many would label as ‘evil’) okay if the end result is the complete annihilation of ‘evil’?

I know that people overtly fond of the antinatalist idea do not wish death and extinction on the human race, but at the same time they effectively are shifting towards that result if procreation itself is regarded as propagating ‘evil’.

The ‘buddhist’ belief is more or less that it is a lie that life must contain some suffering … this is perhaps partially true but it depends exclusively on how one defines and delineates ‘suffering’ and ‘evil’.

If the base argument you are offering up is simply that people born will inevitably ‘suffer’ to some degree then I cannot disagree. I would also add that ‘suffering’ is tied into learning, change and growth so one either opts for change, learning and potential growth or they opt for oblivion and death … that is where any serious dogmatic application of antinatalism falls down.

As a means of questioning our existence it is a worthy idea to ponder on and see where our personal sense of responsibility lies.

It is not at all clear cut to everyone what the difference between ending a life, taking a life or even defining what ‘life’ is in the first place. That is why there is so much contention around items such as abortion and euthanasia.

Surely you know what I am on about now and why it is an intrinsic part of what antinatalism is bringing into question. What can we do about suffering? Yet, why not ask if we should look to eradicate suffering completely if the price paid is effectively the end of all life now and in the future? Clearly there is a wide area of middle ground that for some reason is difficult for us to realise and explore.

It is a very broad question. If you honed in on a particular instance then maybe I could offer up a more precise answer.

Who? Same answer. It depends. One-size-fits-all is a myopic approach.

Such IF questioning can be useful though. I personally would look to forming several bodies to assess information, if needed, for more specific situations. The UN could certainly be one that could provide some expertise as it had a history of trying to manage complex cultural and political interactions.

I never once said it was not an ethical idea. Do not bother quoting my words back at me just read them in the context written.

An ethical idea can be turned over without it being taken as wholly applicable to real lived lives - like with the trolly problem.

There are no real ethical arguments. They are just positions to consider and jostle with because there is no way of drawing a clear line under some item that is universally right or wrong. Antinatalism as an idea is on par with the trolley problem it is just dressed up differently.

I am pretty sure I answered well enough?

Neither nor, rather than either or. It is a sweeping statement to side with one or the other and lacks any kind of nuance. In some circumstances freedom of information makes more sense than in others.

I would say it is worse for everyone to insist on complete freedom or rigid constraints as a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to how information can be distributed and the kinds of arguments against exposing people to items others may deem inappropriate.

What I believe is buried in your OP is the questioning of moral/ethical relativism.

Anything could be justified, but subjective justification is just that … subjective.

It makes perfect sense to pick what students learn and the order they learn it in. Does a pedagogical system necessarily have to be framed as ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. I think the idea of ‘justification’ tries to saddle education as something that takes place in a courtroom.

Just like with ‘offence’ a particular method of education is not at all compatible with every person at any age. As for ‘offence’ in education I would strongly insist that ‘upsetting’ students with ‘questions’ is something every teacher must do at some point so the student can learn how to deal with problems that rouse emotional responses in them. The difficulty faced by every teacher is picking and choosing where and when to ‘challenge’/‘offend’/‘question’ students … this inevitably leads to situations where students ate sometimes more ‘offended’ than challenged. It is dance between the student and the teacher, and consider that whilst the student has only to deal with one teacher at a time the teacher has to do this multiple times for a relatively poor wage and high stress.

This is just the tip of the iceberg … it is a very complex environment to work in and I have seen many teachers fall prey to being put into a position where they too often assume they are smarter than every student to the point that they feel scrutinsed unfairly if they make errors (which they will).

A classroom works well if there is a reasonably large and equal share of humility between teachers and students. A know-it-all teacher is perhaps far worse than a know-it-all student. If there is one thing a teacher should teach - not that I believe in ‘teaching’ per se - it is to teach students to question everything rather than cling to answers as an end goal.

An answer that cannot be applied to, or open up, more questions is not worth anything much at all.

The question remains how we are meant to relate to some hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient person when we are neither.

You can pretend to know what you do not know but I do not see how such is at all relevant as a foundation to build a argument from. As a place to explore from and create new ideas … maybe there is something there for someone with an extremely open mind and/or a more fluid interpretation of the terms used.

People often get offended by antinatalism, as a position, rather than antinatalism as an idea. The former appears as a personal dogma whereas the later is merely a place to think about what it means to bring life into the world, how we were brought into the world and how we can apply/should/might apply terms such as ‘responsibility,’ ‘ethics’ and ‘innocence’.

This has all been pointed out to you before though and remains unanswered, ignored and/or attacked with vitriol.

Antinatalism is certainly an idea worthy of contemplation. As a doctrine to be applied to a humanitarian lived life it has no foundation. Believing that procreation is not the best idea is fine too. Trying to provide ‘ethical’ evidence for it is complete nonsense though.

It may or may not be ‘better’ not to live a life (assuming such can be judged by some hypothetical omnipotent being) but we as mere human beings have sparing insight into that we cannot do more than attach a highly sceptical and unrealised concept to - the concept of ‘omnipotence’.

You will find there is more relation to asking ‘What an Ant aught to do?’ and any answer from such a hypothetical is just as relevant as from an omnipotent being (who we cannot relate to as much as an ant).

If you just ask if a human had the choice to end all suffering by stopping procreation in some fashion or another then ‘aught they’ do so? Then there is the question of how this would be done.

Antinatalism is merely a thought to ponder not a realistic position to take as we are not omnipotent nor if any being omnipotent ‘exists’ can we shoehorn in human sensibilities.

@Bartricks The ‘confusion’ yiu talk about is likely due to struggling to take on some completely intangible alien position and then stating ‘aught to’ as if it is a given.

Isi Training? Oe si U jbiq?

An estimated 90% of population dead due to disease … and you think civilisations just bounce back after that? You do understand that the black death killed 33%? You do also understand that this was not merely a singular disease but a ‘tsunami’ of diseases and illnesses that crippled them?

I see you have short sightedness. Do not assume your own faults are as prominent in others :D

This is not a tantrum. I am merely mocking someone talking shite because they feel like some moral pinnacle who feels that points blame where they feel it is due … yeah! 90% dead … insignificant! Plus it does not play into my views of colonialism and racism so I can just ignore that … it is ONLY 90%. No need to pay attention to recent discoveries in the Amazon basin made by archeologists … they just ‘assume’ the physical data is true … but ‘truth’ is relative … blah blah blah :D

See? Mocking not a tantrum ;)

I just checked the wiki page … it appears you chose to read what suited you and ignored the rest.

On this subject I am sure I know more than you given that you literally stated some glaring untruths/assumptions based on some weird selective reading from a wiki page.

“Dilute horrors” ? What are you talking about? Whole civilisations literally collapsed before a gun was fired … I call that horrific don’t you?

You want to focus on the butchery in Brasil by ex-cons more? Or perhaps the barbarous ways on some native tribes? Or the slaughter of families in the black hills whilst the men were away waging war?

Who is making assumptions? Oh er … archeologists and historians not people who read selective wiki entries to fit into their sense of knowledge.

My entire point was you wrongly attributed aggressive invading Europeans as the primary mover in the downfall of the American peoples and their civilisations. The additional point was that you clearly know next to nothing about Cochrane and his contributions in South America.

You think people coming from Europe could some how not breath? Be serious. As soon as a reasonable number of people were infected it led to collapse of civilisations in the Americas without ANY hostile intention on the part of those landing there.

There is evidence for this along the Amazon where it was reported there were large kingdoms by explorers. Upon returning later no one found these mythical kingdoms … because everyone died of disease. Modern archeology has shed light on this.

You need to read up on your history :D

So many assumptions you make there it is laughable :D

I was just stating a fact about what happened to the indigenous peoples of the americas. To equate the spread of disease with genocide is silly. It is estimated that over 90% of the population died due to the ravages of disease … such is NOT genocide.

The Portuguese were incredibly brutal because they literally emptied their prisons and sent them to Brasil. If you were being sold as a slave you would 100% want to be taken to the states rather than Brasil that is for sure!

Lord Thomas Cochrane was a significant figure in South America. He almost single handedly booted the Spanish and Portuguese out. Interesting guy to study if you like history.

There was mass corruption that led to the regime shift. I am talking about astronomical levels of corruption here btw.

Was Lulu innocent or set up by US officials? Probably the later … but I’m a cynic :D

They likely would be being referred to as ‘people’ rather than peoples ;)

Most natives of the Americas were actually wiped out by disease rather than - as many like to believe - war and genocide. War and genocide barely did anything compared to this.

I imagine some football supporters are cannibals and rapists too. I do not see the point of bringing this up other than to insinuate that football fans are somehow abhorrent compared to non-football fans.

You even went to the trouble to give visual stimulus. Why?

Actually I don’t care. Bye

Hooligans? Like those in Paris attacked by police? The children tear-gassed? Those ‘hooligans’?

Both Japan and South Korea have qualified for the World Cup Finals before becoming host nations (especially South Korea).

Qatar have NEVER reached the World Cup Finals. FIFA talk shite and always have - hence asking people to ‘leave politics out of football’ whilst constantly meddling in politics and bribery.

According to your argument (or plea) World Cup would have never taken place in some tournaments as South Africa 2010; Argentina 1978 or Italy 1934 where these countries were far away from being a democracy. — javi2541997

Fair point. It is more or less a culmination of corruption and the recent (as in past couple of decades) CLEAR and undeniable corruption and backhanders that puzzles me as to how Qatar were still a feasible host? I do not care about ‘democracy’ as a mandate for host nation, but when the scheduling of the game is put out and the host nation has NEVER appeared in the world cup … well, that is just plain stupid. It has been getting into more and more of a sad state and I think more than simple words or ‘fines’ would help … perhaps the fans should boycott? Not exactly sure how much of a dent that would make in commercial income but it would at least hurt Qatar … or maybe not as they are gigarich and the people who paid to have it hosted in their country likely do not care a jot if no one but them shows up to watch the games.

There is also the constant shift towards the moneymakers greed to make a Super League. They got caught planning it and people spoke out very vocally about it … so they pretended to listen then back-doored with ‘revamp’ of champions league.

What are your answers to the questions you pose?

Easy. Character is more important in society.

I obviously disagree because of the above. The assumption that some higher being has anything like our sense of morality is nonsense. If that is woven into the hypothetical then I do not see how it can fit just like a hypothetical such as this:

‘Imagine all apples are oranges. If you were an apple are you an orange or an apple being an orange?’

It is irrelevant nonsense. Contradictory and therefore closed off fro rational thought and sensible investigation.

Your hypothetical may work if you reduce the knowledge and abilities of the entity in the OP as such a being having SOME form of limitations.

Everything would be nothing. There would be no meaning, sense nor care.

Basically, it would be as everything is now … the only difference being we of limited capacities can ‘appreciate’ something we term ‘difference’ through what is likely ignorance clouded with an idea we term ‘knowledge’.

‘Capitalism,’ like ‘democracy,’ is a variated term. I do not see ‘capitalism’ as the root of all social problems myself. It is more or less, in my eyes, a repercussion of other social attitudes and changes due to the modern world.

Communications have changed everything, and are still changing everything.

I ‘work’ 20 hrs a week currently - cut down from 24 hrs.

My ‘job’ is something I enjoy 80% of the time.

I do not get sucked into ‘consumption’ for the sake of consumption - do not use a mobile (have one but it stays as home). I buy new clothes every 4 or 5 years, and the only possessions I have of value to me are my books and iPad. I refuse to wear clothes that have any symbol or writing on (dislike them for some reason).

People may judge, and do, and I do not care too much. I am my own judge and jury for the most part (obviously I am a social creature so others have some sway over my choices and thoughts).

Basically, the OP is a relative point of view. I have felt the general shadow of the OP in life but I simply refused to accept it and told my parents from a fairly young age that I would rather live and die on the streets than get stuck in a job I hated.

Sloth is about avoidance not ‘lazing around’. If someone chooses to sit around all day picking their nose that is their choice. I feel sad for them. Some of the most slothful people I have met are very industrious … they are simply doing something easy to distract from what their passions are.

@schopenhauer1 I would be interested to learn about other schools of ‘pessimism’ if you can give an account of some of them rather than sticking to the one in the OP.

I feel showing the distinctions between different views in this area would help in the understanding of a particular ‘pessimism’.

Okay :) My bad. I did probably take you off-track a bit.

You completely missed my point then. A is B is an abstract, the mistake is you assuming this maps one-to-one onto reality when you apply Electricity and Energy … I even gave such an example to show the distinction between objects that exist and abstractions.

Bring me number one and show it to me and you can then convince me there is no difference. Better still paint me a picture of ‘AND,’ ‘OR’ or ‘IF’ that everyone will recognise as such without painting the words.

It is important to understand that logical rules to not necessarily map onto reality and that logical propositions need not make sense in reality (ie. ‘If Apples are Oranges when …’).

About what? Existing?

Carry on and read nothing that challenges the status quo. — schopenhauer1

You literally said we cannot challenge the status quo … which we cannot. We live, we suffer and we die. Why is this ‘pessimistic’ though? It is just the fact of existing.

Putting words in my mouth now? Why?

I am failing to see the point pf any of this. You simply state the obvious over and over like it is something we should care about whilst simultaneously insinuating we should not care about it.

It does not make sense.

Pessimism is necessary in life. Suffering is necessary in life. That is not exactly anything anyone did not know is it? Even if it is so what?

Everyone gets ‘angry’ at life though at some point. Then we usually grow up … albeit slowly and with instances of regression! :D

We reach it in death. It is not exactly like every waking hour of our lives is hellish or even close to being so.

Human beings are human beings because we are alive. We cannot help existing. Why would we want to? I certainly have no major qualms with ‘existence’ but it is certainly puzzling that I exist and attach meaning to things in my life.

‘Suffering’ is a term too easily thrown around by you I find. Why would any sane person avoid every single ounce of suffering in life? Do to so would mean you are a walking talking zombie person shuffling through life like you are already dead. This is actually something quite common to many humans but the vast majority get over it.

Would you call Schopenhauer much of a narcissist? It just seems to me that such obsession with negative thoughts often stem from a kind of narcissism as the fury/rage/disappointment is directed at the world, or life itself, rather than simply taking the world on as mere happenstance within which we are not particularly significant nor possessing any right to demand/expect reality to be other than it is.

I would not recommend eating number twos. Go for the apple or banana

I would also like to add that Truth exists in the abstract only. If we apply the idea of Truth to realms where the ruleset is obscured/unknown/open to various interpretations (like in spoken/written complex languages) Then we are extending its use beyond its origins.

If A is B then B is A. This has no Truth applied outside the abstract (eg. If a banana is an apple then an apple is a banana). You may say this is logically True, yet in reality we can state an apple is a banana and believe it only in the sense that both are fruit … and that is stretching it! For some conscious creature of limited mental capacity I see no reason why they would not equate an apple with a banana given their common attributes.

The point here is the misapplication of Truth into the world we live and inaccurate language we use to communicate.

1+1= 2 in basic arithmetic, yet in other realms of mathematics others may argue otherwise. In reality to say 1 apple and another apple make two apples is also superficially true because the “1” holds universal truth as an abstract and indistinguishable item whereas an “apple” is different to other apples always in time, space and physical constitution.

In reality we make certain leaps to overcome seemingly minute distinctions and this is highly beneficial in allowing us to navigate the world. The Truth in reality is a guide not a rule. In abstraction it is the rule.

Oh yeah! Haha! Glitch in my files … sorry ;)

It is true that I am writing on a forum.
It is true that I am human.

The latter may be ‘true or false’ to you as you may consider that I am AI or some kind.