And this is a reply. What are we attempting to convey here?

It is best illustrated by the events that unfolded earlier today in the U.S. Capitol. One person, unfortunately, was killed. I would compare these to hypothetical (some not) numbers of fatalities that would arise if others in another country decided to encroach their government buildings, numbers amounting to human lives lost that will never be heard of.

In most modern societies, you have a right to insult and make just short of literal death threats toward elected leaders. You can oppose the government openly, vehemently, and on occasion, successfully. Your ancestors, whether you know or accept it or not, were more than likely highly dependent and faithful toward religion, or their idea of a god or supreme being. They considered all their successes, gains, etc. as solely from said entity. So much so they allowed "the reigns to be loosened" so that us modern folk can live as we more or less please, provided basic decencies or at least egregious crimes
are recognized as they are.

Perhaps they were wrong, god did not exist and all successes and contingent rewards or gains were and are based solely on human endeavor, be it moral or otherwise. Perhaps not. You seem to have made your choice. Let others make theirs.

One gets pregnant and one doesn't. Unless you're a seahorse, of course. Are you a seahorse?

Does that make me a good man thinking he is evil, or an evil man playing at being good? — Book273

Neither. It makes you a child. Nothing more, nothing less. Though the window of proper upbringing has come and gone, perhaps you could find solace in society ie. "socially acceptable actions" upon the realization the laws, systems, and orders in place are what allows you to have been raised as you were in the first place. You would not be you, as you are, alive, without the society that you claim to "choose to play nice" in. Show a little respect for what made you and continues to sustain you day after day, at the very least.

I have recently found a flaw in my own philosophical views, a bugging inconsistency. — Matei

Nothing to worry about too much, they'll be many more assuredly.

Good is largely defined as what should be.
And a good thing is a thing that helps said good exist, as it should. — Matei

Yeah but that's just subjective. If aliens happen to exist, perhaps numbering in the trillions, and discover our history, where we are and that we're trying to colonize the universe, we'd probably just get blown up to be honest. And they would this call this good. And logic would agree. But would we? Etc, etc.

"Religious" people are as diverse as the day is long, for starters. So let's consider that. However, the common element is that they usually believe there is a Creator God who wishes us to live and conduct ourselves in a certain way, or at least to avoid certain egregious things. Sometimes, again depending on doctrine, certain failures to do so result in either lack of reward or often punishment. So that's bad. It's not hard to understand.

Without going on too much about what is and what isn't, what's realistic and what's not, etc, I offer the following simple and understandable anecdotes. A long time ago, before science, medicine, technology, and any of that, when the first civilizations and societies first started taking root, observations and patterns that could not be explained where noticed. For example, if you were uncleanly or kept garbage and rotting organic matter around or otherwise did a poor job at sanitation, you most likely were more at risk of becoming sick or contracting an infection. How else could someone explain this at such a time? Perhaps, God wants us to be clean, tidy, and orderly, and avoid the deadly sin of Sloth, otherwise we would be punished, often severely, perhaps even fatally. It made sense, and dang it it worked and saved lives.

Now, these days with all the science and knowledge readily available, such knowledge that (I recall hearing this quote once and though it is memorable enough for me to deem it worthy and relevant of posting here and now, cannot seem to recall from where it was from..) "the average schoolboy is now familiar with facts that Archimedes would have gave his life for"... there seems to be less room for faith. Now, imagine, today in some third world country. A man is being attacked by a larger assailant and is about to be fatally killed in front of many shocked onlookers frozen and pacified by fear. He screams out to the Heavens, and the assailant is struck dead by an inexplicable bolt of lightning from the sky. What are the odds? Slim to none. Therefore, a miracle. Proof of God. Even the most educated, snobbish, and otherwise rational man couldn't help but ponder for at least a moment over the phenomenal chances such an event would occur. This is how legends are born. Granted, most self-determined affirmations of faith are far less remarkable than this. Often a simple predicament solved unexpectedly or slightly annoying situation turned in ones favor. However, faith is faith.

So, it depends on what one believes is the will of said higher power. I suppose more importantly, what is the punishment dealt when certain commandments are broken. It's an act and viewpoint of compassion more so than not. Save for those who just like to milk and cattle-prod the gullible. Of which there are many.

I'm sure there are many. Are you able to provide more information? Both general and specific. Details are useful, if you can be sure you recall them as they were.

It wouldn't be this biblical passage, would it? What about this?

When people are violent to humans they tend to be locked away for it. The cruelty towards animals tends to be because they literally have no voice, and the perpetrator almost always gets away with it.

The beatings and torture footage is from hidden cameras, planted by activists. As Philosophim says, this footage pressures businesses in a positive direction. — Down The Rabbit Hole

In a perfect world, you would not be an idealist but a realist. Not a perfectionist but a pragmatist. And though I admire much of your sentiment as can be inferred here, let us, if not for simple sake of pragmatic philosophical argument, think in other ways.

Say the entire world is but one village. The people have a modest amount to spend, more than enough for essentials, but not incredibly so. The law does what it can to ensure civility and a society without fear of rampant crime, but it is far from omniscient. Now. Say the price of essential foods increase by double. You have, to compare to modern standards, and perhaps these numbers are incorrect of course but perhaps they are correct:

It’s estimated that there are currently 27 million shoplifters in the U.S. today, which means 1 in 11 of us steal from stores and retailers.

At face value, these are not people who either have harmed or would harm anybody. A simple "appropriation" from someone much more successful, typically an unfathomably wealthy corporation who could take the loss. And, in fact, doing so alerts them of vulnerabilities in their systems, thus being a mutually beneficial action for all involved .. I suppose it could be argued. So. Let's say, by arbitrary example, an additional 1 in 11 out of those 1 in 11 are violent, who would kill or injure fellow citizens either in order to achieve said gains or prevent accountability (to escape and avoid jail time).

What do you think would happen to those numbers if the prices for essential goods doubled? Do you think they would increase by anything less than double?

Who knows. I doubt it's as directed, insidious, or "intelligent" as some may infer from your premise. Though, it is an interesting concept. Since we began to become "cleanly" or embrace "cleanliness", we unnaturally remove the germs and microbes that have been on our bodies for, allegedly, millions of years prior. Perhaps this assumption is but a conspiracy theory. Perhaps not. However, in the years leading up to the Black Death that wiped out half of Europe (1000-1200 A.D.) this did occur.

Bathing is [has become] essential to the Western European upper class. — Human history

Of course. Who knows.

Edit: I infer or imply the possibility of germs, viruses, or microbes building intrinsically natural immunity from unnatural and man-made stimuli, as documented here.

Can you articulate at all what is the distinction between inner and outer? — unenlightened

Perhaps the inner is what defines the purpose of an otherwise inherently purposeless outer. Purposeless with the exception of creating purpose for the inner. Or something cliched like that.

Inner life being self-worth, sense of personal identity, values, beliefs, motivation, drive, that sort of thing?

Outer life being how they all interact with the inner lives of others? Or like mentioned discovery and exploration.

Perhaps the inner is the sole commentator on the most important of the five Ws. The only one qualified enough to answer the "why", while the outer answers the remaining four.

Thoughts? Maybe?

The people each lose their own self-sufficiency as well as the capacity to help or benefit each other, undermining the interdependence which constituted the community itself and destroying the basis of friendship. — Garth

The obvious counter-argument would be, no not at all. Simply the 'specialist' or 'highly trained' becomes more successful in their ways and means to help said people, provided they choose to of course. Take "Diddy" as a recent example.

The act of being trained brings a person to stop appreciating simple efforts and to only view others as having skill if they are similarly trained. — Garth

Not always. The master conservationist no longer spends an extended period of time admiring a single rose, not because he lost appreciation for it, simply because he knows his time is better spent protecting the garden so that others in the future may enjoy the gaze at the lone rose that perhaps first inspired him. Nothing more. And nothing less.

When we run about, demanding excellence from one another constantly, we do nothing but destroy the possibility of genuine and authentic fun. — Garth

Others are content with what is, solely thanks to those who strove beyond what is in order to protect it. There is no wrong path, provided neither are foolishly chastised or become out of proportion. Which is what typically happens when individuals are allowed to fall into complacency.

Of course not. The workers should be allowed to take out their frustrations on society and their intimate partners. That or just let other places who don't allow such freedoms including personal belongings or electronics to document such events in the first place make all the money that will inevitably be made and perpetuate the abuse. What you don't know can't hurt you, right? What a silly thread.

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so.

Descartes isn't warranted to conclude that he exists based on the mere fact that he thinks because the thoughts aren't his - it's not Descartes who's thinking. — TheMadFool

Assuming we're not talking about telepathy, and even still, kind of a disturbing and dystopian topic. I'd say it's a safe bet they didn't have that technological capability during his time. Of course, who's to say. I can't recall if it was an urban legend or not but I remember hearing something about someone who started picking up radio signals from a filling he had and was able to hear the programs. Maybe he was just crazy though. Again, who's to say.

That’s like saying that if I accidentally hit someone with my car that I did so intentionally just because I chose to drive a car that day. — TheHedoMinimalist

No, it's not. A person, male or female, who is not under the influence of debilitating substances, who is not physically forced or coerced, and is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids, is literally what defines a legal adult, de facto of course. The idea that an adult who is not aware that sex may produce children is akin to a mental invalid, one that should legally not be allowed to drive a car, operate machinery, or otherwise hold any position beyond perhaps cooking fries or flipping a burger. And even that i'd remain skeptical on. There is no comparison. Sure, perhaps someone can become drunk or perhaps be ignorant enough due to young age who produces a child. On that tangent, someone can become drunk and run a bus from an orphanage off the road killing 50 children. There is no alleviation of responsibility. With exception to ignorance due to youth or mental incapacity which of course changes things.

a highly gifted phony — Matias

What about his assertions of what he believes as significant enough to write about that you yourself determine as "incredibly intelligent and well-read (written?)" do you deem "disingenuous"

Has anyone understood his theory of "fields of sense" and thinks that it is a milestone of contemporary philosophy ? — Matias

Apparently so. While I haven't looked into it, here is a description of it for anyone (mostly interested readers [not OP] who are) .. interested.

"It is still a widespread assumption that metaphysics and ontology deal with roughly the same questions. They are supposed to be concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and to give an account of the meaning of 'existence' or 'being' in line with the broadest possible metaphysical assumptions. Against this, Markus Gabriel proposes a radical form of ontological pluralism that divorces ontology from metaphysics, understood as the most fundamental theory of absolutely everything (the world). He argues that the concept of existence is incompatible with the existence of the world and therefore proposes his innovative no-world-view. In the context of recent debates surrounding new realism and speculative realism, Gabriel also develops the outlines of a realist epistemological pluralism. His idea here is that there are different forms of knowledge that correspond to the plurality of fields of sense that must be acknowledged in order to avoid the trap of metaphysics. " — Apparently Someone

process my emotions or almost break even in conversation — turkeyMan

You realize condoning or otherwise satisfying ill-conceived and counterproductive notions, behaviors, and desires is not "processing [your] emotions", right? And it's nothing to do with notions of sexuality and orientation.

What is this idea of "getting" or "losing" energy mean or translate as to you? Do you become physically drained or mentally invigorated/awakened/etc or both or vice-versa?

Eh. If this was one of those "funny forums" I'd rate this post 5 stars ironically.

Sleepwalking is non intentional. Normal pregnancy outside of .. "coerced measures" is. So. No. lol

it's also arguing that things like bright and loud exist only in the mind — Darkneos

While I can't currently access http://www.drugaddict.com/ official forums in order to find a reply of equal merit .. (perhaps they only existed in my mind as well) I'll try my best. Things as they are defined by the senses may only exist in the mind, but the properties that make them as they are remain quite independent of any conscious mind. Something is bright if it produces a luminosity beyond what the observer is relatively used to. Something is loud if it produces an audible wavelength of vibration also what is beyond whatever the particular observer happens to be used to. Absent of an observer, an audible wavelength of vibration (sound) can shatter a window, thus not only changing its default state of matter or being, but shattering or otherwise destroying it. Most people would call that pretty loud.

Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind

So what is he a corpse? I mean, if he's not speaking using his mind using thoughts or ideas formed using said mind .. yet tries to refer to a concept of "ultimate truth" processed, formed, or otherwise understood by again said mind, that is somehow and for some reason NOT dependent on (his or her) mind .. all there is would be the body. Long story short, just don't do drugs, kids.

Edit: Nah.. I have a cousin who knows people like this. He sounds like someone who has his "third eye opened" .. ;)

Now fiction aside, can we imagine a place without time? — TiredThinker

Becoming one with light (or in a capable ship) and traveling and its speed through the vaccum of space at 186,000 miles per second. Not quite the same thing but probably as close as we'd be able to get.

Without time as in never existed/outside of the laws of time or just say "frozen" in time, etc? It's a curious question that probably has a simple enough answer. I don't know it, though.

If it has intelligent or even any form of life or has beings capable of consciousness obviously they'd have to move or at least think. Wouldn't they?

Not every diametric response is a contradiction, some are affirmations or otherwise directed at possible onlookers. Though, you are correct.

Feeling like there is meaning in life requires feeling like you matter to the world, like you are valuable. — Pfhorrest

This is the childish if not downright animalistic viewpoint one undergoes, experiences, then hopefully sheds like a snake sheds its skin prior to reaching enlightenment ie. true self-worth as determined by the individual. In a world where slavery was not only common but law, did no enslaved person ever experience meaning beyond that of what of what his master conveyed or prescribed to him? I think not. Rare as it may have been.

If life didn't end , we wont need to do philosophy anymore in order to make sense of our failures. — Wittgenstein

I don't think philosophy is your thing, guy.

we are afraid of turning our life into a single big failure. — Wittgenstein

To who? The majority who can barely gather en masse without it turning into a mob/riot/fight? You are afraid of what you described, which is fair. So was I. However, it should be noted that one who can find purpose and value in what others deem as a "big failure" where the same struggle to find either in what is measured as "success" in material riches and influence should not be so easily discounted.

You’re not addressing the actual question of whether or not procreation is moral — khaled

It's neither moral nor amoral, intrinsically. It's a means not an end to a means, one that can result in either outcome. I could make a weapon that can be used to either end all criminality or end all justice and ensure the continuation of said criminality. Haste makes waste they say. Not paying attention and tossing caution to the wind resulting in offspring raised without proper guidance that will become a burden on society whether directly or indirectly through the welfare system or not being raised any better and ending up in prison sucking on the public taxpayer teat while another, possibly a victim of said person, has to work their fingers to the bone to put food in their mouth is of questionable morality, for starters. However, this is but one of many scenarios.

"People will be born therefore procreation is ethical" is a bad argument. The former says nothing about the latter. It's like saying "theft will occur therefore it is ethica — khaled

No doubt. Meanwhile what I was saying was .. okay let's for a second go back to the OP. At least his stated definition "living causes suffering". Suffering is (or causes) a negative emotion .. therefore it is bad and is the main reason for anti-natalism. Inversely, pleasure is (or causes) a positive emotion, therefore a life with more pleasure than suffering is .. good? Otherwise, a life with simply more suffering than pleasure is bad. Unless the argument an individual adopts in anti-natalism is "I can experience a lifetime of pleasure however one moment of suffering makes it not worth living" which the rational person or even a non-rational person would toss aside as non-nonsensical rubbish. So, that means, if life can be made to be more pleasurable than it is suffering, it is good and worth living. And who will help to ensure and/or correct it's current state toward this? Those who identify the problem and therefore its potential solutions, or those who do not?

Using people is not respecting the dignity of the individual. — schopenhauer1

But that's my point, friend. You may choose not to participate and create a person who you will raise to not only not do that but do everything in their power to prevent that. Not because they're "forced to" simply because you raised them to view doing so as beneficial and bringing joy to their person. Meanwhile, those who are raised without said belief will continue to do so and thanks to your non-participation will continue this unabated and unrestricted.

If a person self-sacrifices, that is different than sacrificing someone else for some cause. — schopenhauer1

The child will undoubtedly do what the child wants. The assumption that a child raised to receive joy from selflessness is "sacrificed" or otherwise forced to do something against their will is on par with the same idea toward a child raised to feel joy from selfishness, is it not?

Yet life is basically a much wider version of that. — schopenhauer1

Again, people will continue to be born, and without proper guidance, continue to be subject to the scenarios you provided. Until, someone with knowledge and perhaps guts, decides to raise others in opposition to this.

Bypassing suffering for the future individual is what matters. — schopenhauer1

What future individual? You're an anti-natalist!

and their dignity as people. — schopenhauer1

See above. People will continue to be born, either with the mission or at least inclination that they should or perhaps could better their fellow man and thus future selves in the process, or not. Regardless, births will continue. So. Do you, as someone who recognizes or at least identifies the current state of society and the world as "in need of improvement" enough to imply it needs to be improved have kids who may be taught to do so, or do others who either don't realize or couldn't care less have kids that just contribute to the degeneracy. The choice is and has always been yours.

In this context a 'law' is a decree or rule that can be enforced. I can say "Hey, everyone in my house has to wear pink socks to get in". Sure, I can ensure anyone I allow through my front door is wearing pink socks and threaten anyone who attempts to enter without with a trespassing charge or have them removed. No big deal. However, if I had said everyone on my block must wear pink socks, seeing as I have neither the means nor influence to enforce it, it's not a law. Is it?

Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White

Interestingly enough. If the article is historically accurate..

The encounter between the two groups passed without incident until the last pair at the back of each train began a scuffle. It was then believed that Clodius turned back and was wounded by a javelin thrown by one of the gladiators in Milo's party. — Wikipedia

Entirely depends on the facts of the case. Facts we will never know it would seem.

Ironically, just as it is purported the Roman Republic fell from internal conflict while the Roman Empire fell from external conflict, it would seem (and I could be so wrong) that perhaps Clodius' death was from a direct result of failure to ensure his own internal forces were loyal/under control/Stoic enough to avoid non-diplomatic squabbles (street violence). It's said Clodius' "group" were slaves, so perhaps they had nothing to lose really. I bet it was Milo's gladiators who first muttered the "s" word toward them who started it. Which also draws some of the "external conflict" into play in this event.

Long story short- "That's So Roman" .. *ba dum tss*

The imposition/don't cause harm premise. — schopenhauer1

What are your views on the trolley problem?

I'm sure you know people who actually think enough to consider anti-natalism and it's arguments are the minority. People will still keep having kids without a care in the world. So, just let them? This would seem to place any alleged concern of "human suffering" along with any alleged efforts or attempts to reduce it secondary to simple avoidance of personal responsibility. Would it not? Perhaps that's all it is to some, elimination of (personal) imposition. So this definition of anti-natalism it is not a "humanitarian" or "moral" belief that "delves into the deepest wells of selfless concern for one's fellow man in hopes of preventing suffering" but rather a simple and independent whim of one's own selfish, personal prerogative. Is it not?

Haven't read every single reply in this discussion but have the following been addressed or at least touched on?:

- Conditional anti-natalism which doesn't state all human existence is and will always be immoral simply for whatever reason be it the specific country, life circumstance, or state of society/the world one is in doing so would be "bad" or unwise ie. having kids if you're in a third world village that is already struggling to survive.

- Utilitarian? anti-natalism meaning you should only have kids if they will be your (more or less) main focus in life until they are able to live under a similar or better situation than you yourself, where said outcome is more likely than less likely due to planning, etc. As in, due to the horrors and potential misery that can be experienced in life you shouldn't "just have kids" because you "just wanted to" one day or are infatuated with your partner so much you want to "make one flesh" out of passion or otherwise just have something to do for in life for 18 years.

- Reactive? anti-natalism as in the belief that life (being born) causes suffering and so should be avoided at all costs unless you will raise or can otherwise be reasonably assured the life you bring into existence will actively work to make the world, society, life, etc. a better place for all thus defeating the anti-natalist premise. So, if you want your kid to "do what makes them happy" in life and you and your partner (or other children) don't seem to be exceptionally talented in skills that can help make the world a better place (being a genius, etc.) it should be avoided. However, if you will tirelessly ensure they end up on a path to helping others and improving the quality of life in general (being a doctor, scientist[?], all-around good and selfless person to be around, etc.) or perhaps you yourself, your partner or other children happen to be incredibly talented and therefore capable of doing great works to improve the quality of life and state of the world, it's "OK".

The terms I used are probably poor word choices but you can see the various forms that exist outside of the standard, resolute definition in the OP.

That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts. is this a problem for reductionism? — RogueAI

Reductionism meaning.. if a thing can be simplified, it should? In a way with there being only 10 true digits repeated or otherwise in an 'infinite' number of configurations, I would say it's not quite the same as 'an infinite number of thoughts' simply more of a pattern/holding place that again is really never more complicated than each of the 10 true digits it's made out of.

Neat and long overdue! 1,500 word total each post/response or altogether?

Looks interesting for far. Last sentence sums things up fairly well, imo.

My tetrachromat girlfriend telepathically communicates with her pet robin. I can assure you we most certainly can.

While the premise is admirable, the answer is pretty simple. The truths and/or morals we create and appreciate ourselves. Or perhaps even the inherent biological "compass" we have as to what is good, pleasurable, and well as opposed to what is bad, painful, and terrible as we all are capable of experiencing.

the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual. — Gus Lamarch

Define interpersonal.

I just think art isn't your thing man. To each their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, the message of the flower is the flower, etc., etc.

I imagine it's not a question of who but of what- and no, not like that. Though I do subscribe to the possibility personally. The same thing that would rule a man in charge of the entire world and all its inhabitants is the same thing that would rule his lowliest subject, which is also the same thing that would rule a man on a planet inhabited only by himself. The beast within. Or, human nature to put it inconspicuously. It is in constant battle with a higher nature or calling that also exists within us all.

I believe, or at least like to think, there are two stages each with potentially different persons. Those who rule by succumbing to human nature, eventually gaining dominion over those who breathe by power of their own breath (influence to speak decrees, laws, etc. that are obeyed), followed by those who rule by overcoming human nature after first allowing themselves to be ruled and subjugated by those whose breaths they know are limited.

Ultimately, the individual rules themself. That doesn't mean listening to someone who has transient power over you or what you consider important (perhaps that's why you consider these things important?) isn't the best course of action to ensure this.

Diseases and plagues come and go, none of which have ever really stopped humanity for long. Perhaps, this pandemic instead shows us the true disease which plagues most societies, one that no vaccine made in a lab could ever hope to cure. In a word, dehumanization. Not just of one another or those whom we disagree/don't get along with- but our very selves.

How many hours a day are you on your phone, staring at your computer, your TV, your Xbox, what have you. How many hours are you actually talking to your fellow man face to face, not just talking like you'd do in a line to pass the time or make it less awkward or boring, but socializing, connecting, sharing ideas and feelings, and bonding. Odds are not many.

The fact that this lock down doesn't really interrupt the lives or quality of life of many (people use their phones and the internet, get food and nearly everything delivered anyhow, continue to numb their minds and senses with TV, video games, etc., and when out in public running an errand still rush back home as quickly as possible to get back to the monotony) should be a real eyeopener.

We can speak to anyone anywhere in the world- but can we understand or care for each other or appreciate their company? We can order nearly anything in the world, be it food or goods, and have it delivered to our door the same day- but can we appreciate it or procure said things ourselves without our precious devices? We can annihilate an entire nation in the push of a button or two- but why is even that seemingly not enough to avoid losing what those who came before us had?

What happened to the days of yore where kids would go outside to play until dusk with no problems because everybody knew their neighbors and families would play board games or perhaps watch a good movie before/while preparing a home-cooked meal to discuss their day or other family topics around. What has our species become? Something other than human I fear. Perhaps this is the meta behind the old religious adage of "gaining the world, but losing one's soul."

Can you think of something that doesn't exist (and never did) that isn't a derivative of something that exists in the human conscious (dragons, monsters, etc.) that people would want to look at?

Like, a random abstract painting of colors either coalescing together, spreading in all directions, or splatter art, etc. By this standard, the moment some artist first accidently spilled paint on his canvas makes any of the forms of art mentioned non-original. Doesn't it?

Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed.

Assuming the apparent exceptions listed throughout this discussion are included- for some reason. And co-existence is used in the strict context of politics, simply meaning governance and diplomacy. Yes, someone leading something has to exist in some way, shape, or form. Granted with all you've arbitrarily defined as "what counts and what doesn't" it's a bit like asking can a quadrilateral room have more than 4 walls. Not really.

It gets harder to topple the next domino if the dominos increase in size until one doesn't fall over and the causal chain breaks. — TheMadFool

I find this interesting. A massive 2-ton boulder perched atop a hill may need only the strength of a child to push it over and produce an incredible amount of energy.

If a small domino is able to topple a slightly larger domino (and so on and so on), doesn't the energy increase (not from nothing simply the potential energy stored [by whatever placed it there]) or, I suppose it doesn't "increase" the potential energy was simply there all along, rather, doesn't the kinetic energy amplify?