Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; — universeness

I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here.

you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives? — universeness

No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. I know nothing of their lives. Imagine the hubris.

No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species. — universeness

In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.

All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for every day conversation, but not for philosophy.

"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals.

How many support your position on this thread so far? — universeness

What makes you think I care? :chin:

I'm not here to convince anyone.

The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality. — universeness

Precisely so. Since "the human species" cannot act, intend, etc.; it is not a moral agent. To claim as much is to personify an abstract representation of what is actually a conglomerate of individuals.

The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. — universeness

But individuals do.

In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency? — universeness

That's just dictated by logic.

Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? — universeness

Oh, that's rich.

Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime.

Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. — universeness

It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion.

What are people making of the Russian retreat from Cherson?

A trap? Or did a deal go down behind the scenes?

Since Cherson may have served as a springboard for future Russian offensives, it seems to me Cherson may have been conceded to Ukraine as a form of 'guarantee' that Russia will not make a bid for Odessa / Transnistria.

Peace talks / a cease-fire may be close.

I personally think the fear of nuclear war is based on the idea that Russia is losing in Ukraine. Given the fact that Russia still seems to hold the areas that are strategically most relevant to it, I am skeptical about how desperate they are.

I would expect several rounds of escalations to have to happen, which would likely have to include NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, before initiating a nuclear attack even becomes a serious possibility for Russia.

With that said, if the Russians would ever be under serious threat of losing Crimea, and all conventional options were exhausted, likely they would resort to nuclear weapons. I guess my point is that that state of affairs is not yet very close.

What is likely happening is that Russia is using nuclear threats to manipulate the foreign public - fear mongering, to erode domestic support in NATO countries.

Ok then state your position, ... — universeness

I've stated that impositions - 'to force one's will upon another' - are generally regarded as immoral, following common moral principles. Procreation is an imposition.

Procreation seems to be at odds with this principle, and over the last couple of pages I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok.

So far you have tried:
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.

- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects.

Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least.

Both arguments instrumentalize the individual for ulterior goals.

Both the second and third arguments are irrational.

The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope.

The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition.

If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. — universeness

Only human beings are moral actors.

I hope that clears things up.

YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. — universeness

You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. — universeness

I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game.

The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, ... — universeness

I can do no such thing, nor do I wish it.

Also, how does one terminate something which has already taken place?

Got any more strawmans for us?

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats? — universeness

Humans are the only moral actors.

This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted.

You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. — universeness

Then why are you capitalizing every other word, resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseudo-psychoanalyzing?

Those are not the actions of a calm person.

you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction — universeness

That is not something I claim.

So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent? — universeness

I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.

The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.

When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.

I'm discussing that moral question.

Maybe you need to calm down a little.

The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. — universeness

Nor is it the object of my argument.

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer? — universeness

No.

Do I think it's immoral for a human to kill and eat a baby human?

Yes.

Apparently we hold humans and animals to different standards. Shocking, I know.

So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? — universeness

Only individuals are moral agents. Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. The individual choosing to perpetuate it is.

Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not.

You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. — universeness

This is plainly false. I am not preaching or proposing anything.

I'm pointing out an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who choose to reproduce.

'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' — universeness

The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then?

Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness

It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Based on what logic? — universeness

You stated:

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness

You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.

All morality is a human construct.

So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite.

Your attempt to ignore legacy — universeness

No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.

You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there.

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence? — universeness

Based on common understanding of human psychology.

But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you.

Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness

It's either that or be a hypocrite.

Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy. — universeness

Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project?

Is that your threshold for imposition then? If you like something you get to force it on others?

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe. — universeness

A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said.

1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival. — universeness

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense.

2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human contracted moral crisis you may personally be having. — universeness

Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.

If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question?

3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does. — universeness

Evolution is irrelevant to this question.

Morality is about individuals, their choices, intentions and actions.

4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering. — universeness

Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions.

5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers in necessary. — universeness

6. A universe with no life has no purpose. — universeness

Necessary, why? To whom?

Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me.

My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. — universeness

The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.


I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall.

It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.' — universeness

It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do.

A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. — universeness

Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.

Why don't you start with coming up with a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case?

Yes, everyday people do exactly that as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection. — universeness

And it's irrational for the reasons I've already given you, and I won't accept irrational reasoning as a moral basis for imposition.

Why are you preaching antinatalism then? — universeness

I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation.

Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to discuss to clear up these inconsistencies. — Benj96

I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time.

The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. — Benj96

Well, you'd be wrong.

The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it. — Benj96

It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation.

Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...

... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. — Benj96

You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational.

Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. — universeness

These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. — universeness

This won't do.

There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence.

You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads. — universeness

"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.

You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.

It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently.

I am pro species survival. — universeness

Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.

Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race?

It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work ... — universeness

I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation.

But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them. — Benj96

Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are.

You're quite right, and frankly I have little to add.

I think we have made a clear case that the common logic to justify procreation would not work in any other example of moral human interaction.

It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic.

With respect to those exact conditions what would you say? — Benj96

Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.

A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice.

What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? — Benj96

The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life.

If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it.

The problem with this argument in my opinion, is that the parents do not have any knowledge of what they're about to impose. The life of a new person is a complete unknown. Nor do they have much influence over the outcome - that is determined by many other factors than the parents' goodwill and expertise.

... in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree with this point, and I was hoping that by pointing out some of the moral dilemmas associated with procreation I could coax some of this philosophy out of the its defenders, but I've gotten little in the way of that.

So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?' — universeness

If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".

Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born.

So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum? — universeness

If the means are flawed the ends won't justify them, so my interest is consequences is secondary.

And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of?

I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent.

In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species? — universeness

It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking.

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! — universeness

I'm not.

If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you.

You are choosing to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible ... — universeness

I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.


All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.

You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.

You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks.

It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions.

You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. — universeness

I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing.

Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, ... — universeness

Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to.

These are just your irrational opinions — universeness

They're rational arguments, which you'll have to refute using your own rational arguments.

Human morality guides instinct. — universeness

Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral.

Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism? — universeness

No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency.

Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it. — universeness

Not by/for me.

To use human suffering as the reason for antinatalism would imply utilitarianism, which is another type of "ends justify the means" argument that I am principally against.

Can you really not see the contradiction? — universeness

No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you.

The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not? — universeness

Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species.

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness

I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct.

... so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value. — universeness

But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon. — universeness

There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. Appeals to instinct are no more than the individual admitting they're but a mindless beast, and what's the point of discussing morality with mindless beasts?

The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.

Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means.

It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. — universeness

Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.

That's not a basis for moral decision-making.

It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice. — universeness

I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering.

I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context.

Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not. — universeness

Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism.

So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT. — universeness

Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action.

Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' ... — universeness

No, morality is about individuals, their intentions and their actions. That's what I am talking about.

Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question? — universeness

No, because that question is not relevant to my take on antinatalism.

Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell? — universeness

I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no".

Sure.

How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. — universeness

It would be the responsibility of whomever brings such a situation about, and after that just a very unfortunate state of affairs, I suppose, with people not only being born involuntarily but also giving birth involuntarily.

Who is the someone? — Benj96

The person who the parents know will come to be as a direct result of their actions.

Who do future parents make a children's room for, or buy clothes for?

I assumed that taking into account logical consequences of one's actions was a given before going into a debate about moral action, but I guess I'm wrong?

"Possibly" being the key word. — Benj96

And a parent will never have anything other than "possibly", whether they envision a pleasant or unpleasant life for their child. In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being.

Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? — Benj96

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition. — Tzeentch

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

___________________

It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?. — Benj96

It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf?

We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit. — Benj96

And there are many things one could create that don't involve imposing monumental decisions and possibly a lifetime of suffering on another.

Also, good faith is not an excuse. Many atrocities were committed by individuals who thought they were doing good, and tragically many unhappy people are born from well-intentioned parents. Ignorance is not an excuse.

If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? — Benj96

They can't. Sounds like a darn good reason not to make such a decision on someone else's behalf.

We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. — Benj96

No, we can blame the hubris of the parents who voluntarily hurled someone into life's crucible - into conditions over which they had little control and of which they had little knowledge.

Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? — universeness

It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life.

So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc? — Benj96

That's obviously not what I'm saying.

To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? — Benj96

No.

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.

Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful? — Benj96

The point at which they decide to have children.

Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action.

All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary. — Benj96

I wasn't aware that nature was ever consulted on this issue. What did it say?

As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business. — Benj96

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.

I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. — Benj96

That's exactly the type of power parents exercise over their children, though.

I'm talking about the act of creating a child, which is an imposition upon the child.

Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them — Benj96

That does not change the nature of an imposition.

If I impose something on you, with the intention of "helping you through it", that doesn't suddenly make my act of imposing any less immoral.

But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. — Benj96

The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.

To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should.

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.

Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.

If the antinatalism argument can be said to be boring, it is only because it's an open and shut case.

the question here was ... — jorndoe

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia. — jorndoe

And I took the time to explain it to you in detail. If you're not interested in what I have to say, don't ask me to explain things to you next time.

You're not interested in hearing anything that doesn't confirm whatever media propaganda you've been binging on, and that's a problem I cannot help you with.

I'm all for not unnecessary harming anyone

My gripe was with the idea that there exists a heirarchy of sentience by which we can decide what is moral to eat (or harm) and what is not.

To me, eating plants or insects seems more like shifting the harm to something we have a harder time empathizing with. We sell it off by ascribing value to those traits which we empathize with most naturally - sentience, fluffiness, etc.

To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really?

Novorossiysk (Black Sea) and Rostov-on-Don (Sea of Azov) are more or less on a stretch of Russian coastal real estate from Veselo-Voznesenka to Adler (close to the Sochi Olympic Park). Rumors will have it that Putin spent a bit to develop Taman (just east of Kerch) since 2008, also on that stretch.

Maybe Putin should have used resources to further develop Novorossiysk and Taman for example, instead of spending them on (starting) a costly war ... bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating. :up: But when you're the top dog Russian autocrat that's not enough apparently, and so an old-fashioned land grab it is. :down: There'd instead be less destructive jobs, perhaps praise instead of people fleeing, lost tanks, bodies, a Ukraine with increasing Russo-haters, heavy international sanctions, real threats. — jorndoe

It isn't only about access, but also about control of the Black Sea (just like access isn't an issue when it comes to the Baltic or the White Seas - at least not during peace time). There is no real alternative to Crimea for any nation seeking that control. Consider for example also how weapon installations in Sevastopol can reach the Bosporus due to their central position in the Black Sea.

However, Russia wasn't just going to lose control over the Black Sea, but also to see it fall into NATO (read: 'enemy') hands.

You'd be a fool to think they were going to let that happen, yet that's exactly what the United States did, and Ukraine is paying the price.

It seems you are stuck in a feedback loop containing all the things Russia "should have done", how bad Russia and Putin are, etc. while all of those things should have made it exceedingly clear what the consequences would be of trying to change Ukraine's neutral status.

You and many others are stuck yelling 'Boooo!' on the sideline, without really understanding why things are happening and why they are unfolding the way they are.

The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain. — Vera Mont

I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would.

Can something that does not feel pain (in a way us humans recognize it) simply be killed with impunity? I think not.

Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I don't think there is a moral difference.

By the same logic, would it be more acceptable to harm a less sentient human than a more sentient one?

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me.