There's something you're not telling us. :grin:

Zero suffering would be the ideal we should be aiming for. I don't know if life is even possible after the abolishment of suffering (the trasnhumanist holy grail). If it isn't then that bolsters antinatalism, predicated as it is on the equation life = suffering.

Minimizing suffering to tolerable levels is another, more doable, option (negative utilitarianism).

Alleviate/Eliminate Suffering should be the mantra for natalism. Until then, don't birth children: they won't like life and they'll blame you for it! Double whammy: you're responsible for someone else's suffering and your good intentions - taking a chance for the sake of a better life for your kids - backfired.

Our brains are much more like a 'neural net wetware micro-subsystem' (of an environmental macro-system) than a monadic-modular hardware-O/S-software difference engine. No "pre-installation" necessary, like e.g. (Darwinian) cellular automata, — 180 Proof

WTF? :chin:

JTB definition of knowledge:

S knows P iff

1. S believes P
2. P is true
3. P is justified

There's no knowledge or ignorance reigns supreme if

1. S doesn't exist (life)

or/and

2. Propositions can't be formed (language)

or/and

3. Justification is inadequate/impossible/flawed (logic)

Dialectics or (Pyrrhonian) skepticism target 'illusions of knowledge' (i.e. believing we know what we don't know or cannot be known) – one's ignorance of one's own ignorance. Re: Socrates (early dialogues), Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus ... Montaigne, Hume, Peirce-Dewey, Witty, S. Haack, N.N.Taleb, G. Gigerenzer, D. Kahneman ... — 180 Proof

You da man! :clap:

:up:

There's also agnoiology.

I don't wanna remember nothing, nothing! You understand? — Cypher

I am going to go and explain this to a horse now, as that would be a better use of my time. Tara. — Bartricks

:rofl:

:zip: Wriggle finger. — Cratylus

Despite my many attempts to grasp Wittgenstein's point, I have to confess nec caput nec pedes.

Wittgenstein's right on the money when he claims that words are essenceless across domains, but I fear people misunderstand this to mean that words are sans an essence within domains. Domains herein loosely corresponds to language games.

Imagine there's a rule on how to use a particular word. I apply the rule (as I apprehend it). However, my rule is not the same as your rule and yet the first few instances the two of us have used that word are compatible with both our rules. That we're using two very different rules is hidden for this reason.

It seems the rule following paradox has something to do with private languages (beetle-in-the-box)

I just discovered a very interesting solution to the infinite regress (of causes). Don't posit an uncaused cause; rather propose a self-caused cause. That way we can avoid the contradiction in the Kalam cosmological argument entailed by the premise: everything has a cause.

So, we must all take responsibility for this, every single one of us!
It is everyone's responsibility to help change this truth.
It is your responsibility also. You are not good-for-nothing, that's just untrue. — universeness

It's helpful to look at life as a battle/war. Sure, there's the possibility of reinforcement, but it's better to assume there's none! Every man, woman, child for himself/herself/itself! Be independent and all will be well!

Your argument is based on value judgements, not facts. Whiney, cowardly value judgements. — T Clark

The squeaky wheel gets the grease! The situation is relatively better now than in the past precisely because people like antinatalists have been kvetching about the problems with life (tiring - machines, too hot - AC, too cold - heating, too painful - analgesia/anesthesia, so on and so forth), making it possible for people like you to denounce, in degrading terms, people like us who complain! We're the ones who stimulate positive change in the world! Prove us (antinatalists) wrong - improve life; we'll keep whining until we're satisfied that life is worth living. :smile:

Well, it's like this:

A taxi fare can't be/shouldn't be based on time for there are too many unpredictables involved (an accident, a traffic jam, a fallen tree, etc. that could delay the journey). Ergo, it makes sense to base a taxi fee on distance rather than time.

A cabbie can do nothing about distance (excepting taking a longer route rather than a shorter one) and so, if s/he wants to make more money, it has to be by speeding so that he can cater to more customers (more customers, more moolah).

This is the paradox then: you pay for the distance the cab travels, the cabby acts as if you paid for his time.

I'm a good-for-nothing, but if you want my opinion,it's this: Take care of yourself; put the oxygen mask on yourself before you try to help others. If everybody had the good sense to do that, the world wouldn't need heroes or a Christ savior. It's that simple, the solution that is, but no, some of us just don't do enough to stay away from trouble - we make mistake after mistake until we end up on the streets, homeless, penniless, hopeless, helpless, etc.

That said, Lady luck has a way of messing up the most carefully of laid out plans. To bad, that's just the way it is I'm afraid. For such unfortunate peeps, help is justified and necessary for they usually become the first domino to fall, setting of a chain reaction that usually spirals out of control. A fine mess we've got ourselves in!

You can't tell the difference between there's nothing and there's something, it's just that you don't see it!

There's no reason & There's a reason that I haven't figured it out are identical twins. So...

:ok:

Baby's are born with a priori knowledge. If born blank knowledge gathering can't even start. — Dijkgraf

Bingo! There has to be some preinstalled software (MS DOS) to get the computer (brain/mind) started and ready for action! Bootstrapping!

I don't think that the law affects the possibility of joy and the meaning one could find in their life — DA671

The law means hell is in the offing. Why would you say joy isn't affected? Do you mean we could be "happy in hell"? :chin: Meaning in life? Does meaning offset suffering? If suffering has meaning, does it become joy or bearable? Possible, but only the naïve would make such a trade - they've not seen real suffering. Nothing is worth going through hell for, right?

the prevention of all happiness can be deemed ethical. — DA671

Now you're talking. Yep, the antinatalist does, if one gives it some thought, throw the baby out with the bathwater. What I would recommend is something to numb the pain, a stopgap measure as it were, while we get busy finding a cure for pain/suffering.

Chaos might seem inevitable, but I think that we will eventually find order amidst it as well — DA671

Your thoughts don't count I'm afraid. You're up against a law - the law of (increasing) entropy. Show me how we might be able to crack the problem of entropy?

Heaven might also be more inevitable than we realise, but perhaps the cycle is eternal — DA671

You mean birth-life-death-decay? I'm with you on that, but note it looks like we're in the death & decay phase (the beginning of the end so to speak). Just the right conditions for the antinatalism meme to find willing hosts and replicate.

Is there no one who drank the waters of the Mnemosyne pool? Everyone decided to go Lethe huh? That could only mean one thing...

There was and there are different answers to be found, though people accept different ones ;)

The Earth is a slightly different matter, but I hope that we can continue to work together towards progress for all! — DA671

I don't see how the 2^nd law of thermodynamics can be violated. God, ergo, heaven (bliss) has always been associated with order (low entropy). Hell is chaos, chaos is inevitable (it is the law); hell is ineluctable. Hence antinatalism. Why jump into the fire, when you can avoid it?

I take it there is universal agreement that if death really is a portal to hell, then it would be seriously wrong to procreate? — Bartricks

Was there any doubt?

The question of questions is this: Will the earth become hell or heaven? It all depends on which of these two is a high entropy state? No prizes will be awarded for answering this question. It's too easy!

Anti-natalists are saying that bringing people into the world is ok only if there is no risk. That's a silly standard. The whole basis of the anti-natalist argument presented in this thread is that death is; in an of itself; terrible, horrible, no good, very bad enough to make the rest of life not worth living. As we've shown, most people don't feel that way. You guys are wrong. And you're whiny cowards. — T Clark

Whiny cowards? :smile: We (antinatalists) are only working with facts as they stand: the world is a dangerous place (for children). There's a difference between being brave and reckless: discretion is the better side of valor if you must know. That's all from me (for now).

Free will may need to be unpacked into two categories:

1. Positive free will: Compliance with one's will.
2. Negative free will: Defiance of one's wills (free won't).

Our own experiences inform us that we have more positive free will (easy) will than negative free will (tough).

:up:

This - smug, self-righteous, self-serving, unsupported - is what makes me want to kick you and Bartricks down the street. Let's leave it at that. — T Clark

Natalists are saying that the world is a safe place for children. Is it?

You havden't done your homework. That's why you're objecting to the claim that it's a paradox.

In general, I do think that thoughtlessly creating beings without resolving some of our fundamental issues wouldn't be a good idea — DA671

I'm very pleased that you understand the antinatalist position.

Part of the problem is that we need to be able to predict the future (coincidentally a message on my TikTok read "Can you predict what this is?"). Is the graph pointing up or down? What are we measuring anyway?

Agreed, but you and Agent Smith started it. — T Clark

Are you accusing @Bartricks & me of being prime movers? :blush: I thought there could be only one prime mover! Bartricks, please finish what you started! :grin:

As for antinatalism, I still think it's the most reasonable policy to adopt given the circumstances we're in (overpopulation is an existential threat to humanity: sacrifice the few to save the many is one way out of the mess). If you disagree, it can only mean you want the annihilation of the human race in the most horrible way possible: not only do we end up dying in droves, but we also lose our humanity. Just saying. Convince me otherwise (if you so wish).

Show me where you found this. — Sir2u

Just google it!

Baloney. Just because you're too lazy, or socially inept, or frightened, or ugly to have children, that doesn't make you a person of integrity. — T Clark

:lol:

You've got me!

Misfits? If to care about people suffering, horribly some times, makes one a misfit, I'd gladly be one! Who wants to be a part of a group that turns a blind eye to the real and abject misery that, perforce, must be mentioned in the defintion of the world as we know it.

Two word refutation: "Donald" "Trump" ... QED. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:lol: Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He defies classification, a category of his own!

Sorry, I'm not an animist, so anthropomorphism – spacial pleading – won't get you anywhere with that tact. — 180 Proof

No problemo!

:ok:

If people cannot find adequate value in their lives, it would obviously be better if they did not exist — DA671

That's all there is to antinatalism.

I do not think that an exact calculation exists — DA671

A lack of trying.

potential for immense happiness — DA671

Vs. Actual suffering. You ignore real pain for only the possibility of "immense happiness". Religion's empty promise.

creating people in terrible conditions is not a good idea. — DA671

Good! At least you agree with the logic of anitnatalism.

For the record, I, like all antinatalists accept that there's joy in the world. However, I'm doubtful of its authenticity - is it real joy or merely an illusion. Of suffering, I can't say such a thing - suffering is always real suffering.

The extinction fossil records of some 98% of all species is testament to life's blindly wanton profusion of ("antilife") maladaptations. — 180 Proof

The only way to survive everything chance can and will throw at life is to use the exact same strategy (random gene mutations). Given this, maladaptations don't exist - every species is a chess piece life has mobilized against an opponent that's unpredictable and in a dangerous way.

Evoltion doesn't have any "objective" — 180 Proof

Would you agree that if evolution were treated as a person, like you or me, it's purpose (seems) is survival?

What would it take to convince you that antinatalism is correct/right/true? Hell I suppose, obviously. The only reason I would endorse natalism is heaven. The earth is neither, yes, but now we switch gears from type/kind to degrees, oui? How, in your opinion, could we measure how :smile: / :sad: people are?

Here's an intriguing dilemma for you:

Is the situation going to get better/worse?

If better, it's bad and so antinatalism.

If worse, antinatalism.

P. S. Don't treat your children like a general treats his/her soldiers.

OP. Why do you think we die? Does nature know that, after a certain point in life (re: aging), the suffering is too much?

Nay antinatalism! — DA671

:ok:

incomplete picture is dangerous — DA671

Antinatalism is based off the complete picture: it concedes there is happiness, it's just qualitatively and quantitatively inadequate, especially when compared to the rich variety and severity of suffering, to justify procreation.

There is a potent joy hidden beneath that sacrifice — DA671

Precisely, natalists have it tough: they're forced to look at a black object and perceive a whiteness in it to make their case.

Superficial pleasures — DA671

Bullseye! There's no such thing as "superficial" pain!

math — DA671

Ask a friend mathematician to do the math. You'll see the light!

I also appreciate your kindness and care for others — DA671

I do care. Ergo antinatalism.

hope that people can have decent lives and help make the world a better place for all — DA671

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst! Antinatalism follows.

Ain't we all just human, all too human (aka "stupid is as stupid does") — 180 Proof

You're on target! I want to pick your brain on something that just popped into my head.

Antinatalism is definitely anti-life. Remarkable, isn't it, that life could, over billions of years of struggle to survive, produce antinatalists. I'm expecting evolution, if survival is its primary objective, to mount an equal and opposite response. What would that look like? Would all antinatalists die off?

Parenting isn't always easy — DA671

Yep! However it's tougher for the kids! Hence antinatalism.

I've met many parents who've sacrificed their careers and their enjoyment for the sake of giving their children a good life. — DA671

Doesn't that add to the suffering? Sacrifice :grimace: Like I said, life's a zero-sum game: children's happiness is paid for with parents' suffering.

The risks cannot be seen without the opportunities, which would only be caused by the parents, making them deserving of praise — DA671

I quote enjoy taking risks; life is, after all, a gamble. Nevertheless, some risks are not worth it! Pain has more weight than pleasure i.e. if pleasure & pain could be measured, 1 unit of pain > 1 unit of pleasure. Do the math (expected value, probability) and you'll discover that the game ain't worth the candle.

Thanks for staying positive though, but I'm afraid life is a lost cause or will be one...soon! Good day.

risks — DA671

Yep, that's the word I was looking for. Having children is to take a risk. Who bears that risk? Not the parents, no, the children! Doesn't that make would-be parents immoral? How would you like it if I asked you to undertake a journey to Afghanistan, that too on foot :grin: , knowing full well that you might be kidnapped, held for ransom in a cold filthy cave, tortured (to death), and then beheaded (slolwy)?

mindless procreation — DA671

Antinatalists would say all procreation is mindless procreation.

My logic is simple. We can't guarantee the safety & security of children, nor can we ensure children will live a happy & content life. Given this, it's irresponsible & immoral of us to bring children into our world. Would you, for example, send your friend on a quest if his/her safety was in question? It's the same thing, may be even worse.