OK. What solution do you propose for all that?

Enough information for what? You could be claiming that being forced to experience anything is unjust. Are you? — Srap Tasmaner

A would not necessarily be unjust. But the inevitability of B and C is going to be the case though (at least in this non-utopian world).

Connection to what? C is only about experiences that are inevitably in part bad; would you describe having such an experience as an injustice? It's a simple question. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes.

There's no birth at all in my questions. I'm trying to ask about the general case of which procreating is supposed to be an instance. — Srap Tasmaner

So what is the point of C? It is just stated as to what is happening.

OK. What solution do you propose for all that? — Alkis Piskas

Too late for the already born. However, recognizing our common suffering is one thing we can do. Of course, not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thing. Prevent future cases of injustice (in this regard the injustice of the work situation).

Your point was that life is a game where one must work to survive. The only surefire way of escaping this game is suicide or starvation. However we now know that what you are really concerned with isn't escape from the game itself, but escape from suffering within the game. Which is an important departure form your op:
Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism.
— schopenhauer1
Now it's more like: Any forced, inescapable game, where it's too difficult not to suffer, is a target for scrutiny and criticism. If so: Life as is right now, in many places, offers easy enough ways of escaping suffering within the game.

In real life the escape from suffering is pretty easy in a lot of places (which would make imposing the game ok in those places). You think this statement is false. Show why this statement is false. — khaled

The way to show that ridiculous statements are ridiculous is to show their ridiculous consequences. The point is that a utopia is just as difficult to escape as life currently (only suicide works). But I don't think anyone would be against having children in a utopia. That would mean this standard isn't sufficient to tell apart wrong and ok impositions either. — khaled

I want to address this because this is mischaracterizing the argument to make your point. By the way, have you ever read Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right?

It's about not escaping without dire consequences. In the utopia example you said:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

That is literally saying that there is no forced game at all.. You are by definition taking away the very thing that one cannot in this world.

not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thin — schopenhauer1

I see. Stop reproducing ... But there will always be rich people who could find means to make people reproduce and governments who could force people to reproduce or forbid the use of contraceptives and abortion, as it was done in Nazi Germany ...

Besides, our world might be totally destroyed or the conditions for life on Earth cease to exist in one way or the other, before reaching such a state ...

So what is the point of C? It is just stated as to what is happening. — schopenhauer1

Just making sure.

I interpret Albero's idea about pessimism in that why don't I discuss pessimism in more exposition rather than making these tit-for-tat microarguments — schopenhauer1

And I reply to his pessimism point later. This was in response to “Doesn’t shope give many reasons why life is too difficult a game”? No, you give none.

The idea of lacking in the human animal is shown over and over in daily life too much and is too true a truism to just dismiss — schopenhauer1

Everyone agrees that people feel lacking sometimes. But that it’s all pervading affliction that never goes a way isn’t at all the case. Not in my experience at least. Just how many people would you think agree with:

life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. — Albero

You have a habit for claiming that something is the case with no evidence. You claim that the above is shown to you in daily life over and over. Most people wouldn’t make the same claim of their daily lives. Then it seems that it’s not so much a truism, as a sign of depression. But even if we accept it as true, the rest of what I say follows.

That isn't necessarily the claim. Rather, it is the dissatisfaction at the heart of being an animal in the world with needs and wants. The very fact of pursuing this or that.. — schopenhauer1

And I’m telling you these dissatisfactions are too easy to satisfy and so the game is fine to impose. You disagree and offer no reasoning. Despite it being you that’s trying to convince others.

People are often not as happy as they need to present themselves to others — schopenhauer1

Going to therapy has nothing to do with how “presentable” you are. In fact, oftentimes people are perfectly presentable and seem happy but actually are suffering. Those are the most common patients.

Again, the root of the problem is the need for X at all and that it is constant except for very few moments — schopenhauer1

False. And we’ve been over this. Your issue is not with the need to do X (the game). Your issue is that doing X is too difficult. If X were incredibly easy you wouldn’t have an issue with imposing the game (utopia example. You still need to snap your fingers to make the suffering go away, that’s an X you need to do). And so I tell you: X is too easy to do in life, enough to make it ok to impose the game. It’s on you to SHOW why this is not the case, instead of effectively assuming your conclusion and stating that it is.

I want to address this because this is mischaracterizing the argument to make your point — schopenhauer1

How exactly is it doing so? Which thing have I attributed to you that shouldn’t have been attributed to you? I’m very interested in seeing you answer this. And it would be hilarious to me if you just ignored it as usual.

That is literally saying that there is no forced game at all. — schopenhauer1

False. Living itself is a forced game. The only way to escape is suicide. And there is no euthanasia option. I did add that caveat didn’t I? I know you remember. It’s just that, in the utopia example, the game is incredibly easy (easy not to suffer in).

Now I’m saying that in real life the game is already plenty easy to bring in more people. You disagree. So show why it’s the case that life as is is too difficult.

It’s getting tiring going over ground we have already agreed upon.

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.
— khaled

Si let me know when life is that utopia — schopenhauer1

How exactly is it doing so? Which thing have I attributed to you that shouldn’t have been attributed to you? I’m very interested in seeing you answer this. And it would be hilarious to me if you just ignored it as usual. — khaled

You said this particular argument is just a case of "no suffering" when rather it's about not escaping.. yet you clearly said:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

It is precisely those dire consequences that make the game inescapable. You took that away.

You are changing the argument to this:

Now I’m saying that in real life the game is already plenty easy to bring in more people. You disagree. So show why it’s the case that life as is is too difficult. — khaled

The argument is about the injustice of an inescapable game.

Economy should be fun.

The problem is perversity.

A metaphor...

Reddit Philosophy is just a propaganda outlet that hastily shuffles away good threads into the recycle bin.

The subreddit is paid to showcase content that supports certain regimes.

It isn't fun at all because it serves special interests.

The case is, a platform for fun, serious discussion is hijacked by mischievous people who, themselves, hog all the fun. The majority is overwhelmed by their tyranny and must conform or suffer dishevelment, loneliness.

The same goes for the Economy.

Too late for the already born. However, recognizing our common suffering is one thing we can do. Of course, not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thing. Prevent future cases of injustice (in this regard the injustice of the work situation). — schopenhauer1

The main reason why I think this is wrong is because the only apparent benefit from this stance and this course of action is a certain satisfaction of the antinatalist's ego.

Since not procreating means there will be no future entities that would suffer, the whole issue of their suffering becomes moot.

So the only thing that remains is the satisfaction that the antinatalist feels in the here and now. And it's perverse to argue that people should not procreate so that the antinatalist could get some satisfaction.

And it's perverse to argue that people should not procreate so that the antinatalist could get some satisfaction. — baker

An injustice did not happen to someone. Why is the idea of “bad thing did not happen to someone” somehow not legitimate? The opposite is something bad happened to someone. We are preventing that scenario.

An injustice did not happen to someone. Why is the idea of “bad thing did not happen to someone” somehow not legitimate? The opposite is something bad happened to someone. We are preventing that scenario. — schopenhauer1

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice.

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, you haven't prevented the injustice. Because when there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, the notion of injsutice does not apply.

It is precisely those dire consequences that make the game inescapable. — schopenhauer1

Huh? This doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s start slowly. You use the term “the game of life” quite often so when you say “game” that’s what I assume you’re referring to.

Is the game of life escapable in the utopia example? What is the method of escaping the game in the utopia example?

Is the game of life escapable in the real world? What is the method of escaping the game in the real world?

You will find that your answer to both questions is the same. Except in the one case you think having children (imposing the game) is ok and in the other you don’t. Which means that:

the injustice of an inescapable game. — schopenhauer1

Isn’t a good indicator. Both the utopia and the real world are equally inescapable. The only way out is death or suicide.

Furthermore, you agreed that your problem isn’t with inescapable games, but inescapable games where it’s too difficult not to suffer. You agree right here.

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.

Si tell me when life is that utopia — schopenhauer1

So I ask you to show that life qualifies as “too difficult” and you fail to do so.

Again, it’s tiring repeating the same thing over and over. I didn’t “change the argument” we arrived at this point through simple questioning. The utopia example demonstrates that a forced game is not in itself bad, as you’re still being forced to live in the example. Your problem is with forced games that are also difficult. But you cannot show that life qualifies as such, so you attempt to reset the conversation.

Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example, at the time the act is done there is no one to suffer an injustice by it. Yet it’s clearly an injustice no?

Is the game of life escapable in the utopia example? What is the method of escaping the game in the utopia example? — khaled

So suicide is not the escape because it is suicide. You are getting caught up on that. Rather, in this world, since there are very few options, suicide is one of the only actions to escape. However, in your utopia, you can snap your fingers and don't have to play the game of life to stay alive. The "game" is "the game of life" (set of challenges to overcome to survive.. what one must do in an economic system whether hunting-gathering or "laboring" in a mixed market capitalist society or communism or any other economic system).

I was purely going off what you said here:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

Maybe I misinterpreted how this utopia worked then?

Is the game of life escapable in the real world? What is the method of escaping the game in the real world? — khaled

In the real world, one cannot escape from the survival game. The closest one can come is independently wealthy, or free rides off something. If everyone escapes this way, the game itself is ruined and no one free rides. But really, there is no escape in this world of playing the game of life (producing/consuming/surviving via an economic system of labor/exchange etc.).

You will find that your answer to both questions is the same. Except in the one case you think having children (imposing the game) is ok and in the other you don’t. Which means that: — khaled

No, I said without dire consequences and then named several such as suicide, homelessness, etc. You can opt out of the game, but you will have a hard time of it in our world.

Isn’t a good indicator. Both the utopia and the real world are equally inescapable. The only way out is death or suicide. — khaled

Again you are misinterpreting what I mean by escape. Can one opt out of the economic game of life without death in utopia? You seemed to indicate yes. You don't have to play. You snap your fingers and you have what you want. Or perhaps I didn't understand this utopia you were describing. There ARE NO DIRE CONSEQUENCES in the utopia as I interpreted it.

Furthermore, you agreed that your problem isn’t with inescapable games, but inescapable games where it’s too difficult not to suffer. You agree right here. — khaled

That was me answering offhandedly with limited time.. The utopia has a way to escape without dire consequences. And it's true that is not this world.

So I ask you to show that life qualifies as “too difficult” and you fail to do so. — khaled

Too difficult is if you don't play the forced game, dire consequences ensue (which apparently doesn't happen in your utopia). You die, starve, hack it in the wilderness (and then probably die), or some other crappy fate.

Again, it’s tiring repeating the same thing over and over. I didn’t “change the argument” we arrived at this point through simple questioning. The utopia example demonstrates that a forced game is not in itself bad, as you’re still being forced to live in the example. Your problem is with forced games that are also difficult. But you cannot show that life qualifies as such, so you attempt to reset the conversation. — khaled

And it's tiring repeating over and over how I HAVE emphasized from the beginning that the game is inescapable because of DIRE CONSEQUENCES of not playing it. Keep up.

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, you haven't prevented the injustice. Because when there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, the notion of injsutice does not apply. — baker

False, there's two parts here:
A) Someone preventing an injustice.
B) Someone for which an injustice could happen.

The part I am discussing is A.
A is causing B not to happen.
Situation is good.

Let's give an example.

A)Baker prevents a baby from being born in horrible conditions.
B) A baby was not born into horrible conditions.
Situation is good.

You would like me to think that this state of affairs is somehow off the table as far as evaluation. I don't see how. It is good that X prevented a baby from being born in horrible conditions.

However, in your utopia, you can snap your fingers and don't have to play the game of life to stay alive. — schopenhauer1

False. You are still alive hence playing the game of life. If you stop snapping your finger, you will suffer exactly as you would IRL.

set of challenges to overcome to survive.. what one must do in an economic system whether hunting-gathering or "laboring" in a mixed market capitalist society or communism or any other economic system — schopenhauer1

Yes you still do all of this in the utopia. It’s just exceedingly easy to do so. All you have to do is snap your fingers. That’s your labor.

But really, there is no escape in this world of playing the game of life (producing/consuming/surviving via an economic system of labor/exchange etc.). — schopenhauer1

Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. Still the example stands. In the utopia you don’t escape work. You still have to snap your fingers. It’s just that work is exceedingly easy.

In the real world, one cannot escape from the survival game. — schopenhauer1

Neither can they do so in the utopia. The only difference, is that the survival game in very easy in the utopia. IRL you have to do more than snap your fingers to survive.

You don't have to play. You snap your fingers and you have what you want. — schopenhauer1

That’s playing. An easy game.

The utopia has a way to escape without dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

No it doesn’t. You still have to play the incredibly easy game of survival. You haven’t escaped it.

Too difficult is if you don't play the forced game, dire consequences ensue (which apparently doesn't happen in your utopia). You die, starve, hack it in the wilderness (and then probably die), or some other crappy fate. — schopenhauer1

Exactly the same case in the utopia. If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you. But we have established that having children in a utopia is fine. Hence showing that it’s not about the sheer magnitude of the punishment for failure, but also how difficult the game is. As again, the magnitude of the punishment for failing at the survival game is identical in both cases (starve, hack it in the wilderness and die, etc)

And it's tiring repeating over and over how I HAVE emphasized from the beginning that the game is inescapable because of DIRE CONSEQUENCES of not playing it — schopenhauer1

I understand you’ve emphasized this. And I’ve shown repeatedly how it makes no sense. The consequences are EXACTLY as dire in the case of the utopia. The only difference is the difficulty of the game, which you refuse to acknowledge as a variable because doing so would mean you have to show that life is too difficult which you cannot do.

False. You are still alive hence playing the game of life. If you stop snapping your finger, you will suffer exactly as you would IRL. — khaled

Fact, bears eat beets. Bears beats Battlestar Galactica...

False. That was not how I was defining the game.. This thread is about "work" in particular. that part of the game of life to do with working in an economic system of some kind to keep alive.

Yes you still do all of this in the utopia. It’s just exceedingly easy to do so. All you have to do is snap your fingers. That’s your labor. — khaled

Notice I said here to 180:

It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. — schopenhauer1

.

If snapping fingers is a set of challenges, then it would be wrong. Can we agree that the world we live in now at the least, is a set of challenges? I am not sure about your utopian world, but this one certainly is.

Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. Still the example stands. In the utopia you don’t escape work. You still have to snap your fingers. It’s just that work is exceedingly easy. — khaled

Right I get your one trick pony... Like a kid who learned a joke and uses it over and over cause someone laughed the first time. What's black and white, and "red/read" all over??

That’s playing. An easy game. — khaled

Right, is that a set of challenges to overcome? Are there dire consequences? I would say no to both. If snapping your fingers is a challenge (disabled?) then it is wrong. Are the challenges so minimal as to the consequences being de facto, not dire (due to their easy obtainability)? I think that makes sense.

Exactly the same case in the utopia. If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you. But we have established that having children in a utopia is fine. Hence showing that it’s not about the sheer magnitude of the punishment for failure, but also how difficult the game is. As again, the magnitude of the punishment for failing at the survival game is identical in both cases (starve, hack it in the wilderness and die, etc) — khaled

Yes, I would agree hence "Set of challenges" was my more detailed definition as given to 180..You're not giving me the Socratic "aha" moments you probably think you're doing bud...You're just "sweeping the leg" and I'll just give you the "crane kick" every time :).

I understand you’ve emphasized this. And I’ve shown repeatedly how it makes no sense. The consequences are EXACTLY as dire in the case of the utopia. The only difference is the difficulty of the game, which you refuse to acknowledge as a variable because doing so would mean you have to show that life is too difficult which you cannot do. — khaled

I have explained the set of challenges here as I now understand more about this utopia you've created (which isn't this world, right?).

False. That was not how I was defining the game.. This thread is about "work" in particular. that part of the game of life to do with working in an economic system of some kind to keep alive. — schopenhauer1

Oh wow, not like I pointed that out specifically:

Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. — khaled

Right I get your one trick pony... Like a kid who learned a joke and uses it over and over cause someone laughed the first time. What's black and white, and "red/read" all over?? — schopenhauer1

It certainly comes off that way when you cannot comprehend a simple argument so I have to repeat myself over and over. The fact that you make the same thread once a week and then complain about getting the same reply, also helps make the impression.

If snapping fingers is a set of challenges, then it would be wrong. — schopenhauer1

So I guess having kids in this utopia is wrong then?

Can we agree that the world we live in now at the least, is a set of challenges? — schopenhauer1

Of course.

I am not sure about your utopian world, but this one certainly is. — schopenhauer1

What's there to not be sure about? Of course it does. The challenges are laughably easy, but they're there.

Right, is that a set of challenges to overcome? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Are there dire consequences? — schopenhauer1

Absolutely.

If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you — khaled

Are the challenges so minimal as to the consequences being de facto, not dire (due to their easy obtainability)? I think that makes sense. — schopenhauer1

No, it doesn't. The ease of the challenge does not make starvation any less dire. How would it? Also you accept that they are challenges here, although minimal. You can't say "they're not challenges" and then turn around and say "they're challenges that are so minimal that they make the consequences less dire". Pick one.

If you're going to say that the ease of the challenge makes the consequences "de facto less dire" and this makes the imposition ok then I'd argue that's exactly what's happening IRL as well. Starvation is a big deal, but what you need to do to avoid it isn't that difficult, therefore starvation is "de facto not a dire consequence" which by your definition would make life ok to impose (since it doesn't have de facto dire consequences). How would you show that I'm wrong in this case? Same question as before: How would you show that life is too difficult so as to make it wrong to have children?

Yes, I would agree hence "Set of challenges" was my more detailed definition as given to 180.. — schopenhauer1

Which is met.

It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. — schopenhauer1

Which part of this is not met in the utopia? Unavoidable? Yes they're just as unavoidable as they are IRL. Set of challenges? Yes as you say yourself:

Are the challenges so minimal as to.... — schopenhauer1

Some unknown some known? Yes, all known. If these challenges are not overcome one has a very hard time of things including death? Yes.

So the entire definition is met. But that won't stop you from claiming they're not challenges. So which is it: They're not challenges? Or they're challenges but they're so easy they make the consequences of failure "de facto" not dire? Pick one.

You're not giving me the Socratic "aha" moments you probably think you're doing bud. — schopenhauer1

I would never think I'm giving you any Socratic moments. Not with the level of comprehension you're displaying.

You're just "sweeping the leg" and I'll just give you the "crane kick" every time :). — schopenhauer1

A fantastic analogy! I high kick wouldn't connect if I'm sweeping your leg. In other words, your "rebuttals" are not addressing the arguments I'm making.

You would like me to think that this state of affairs is somehow off the table as far as evaluation. I don't see how. It is good that X prevented a baby from being born in horrible conditions. — schopenhauer1

The only person who benefits in any way from this is the antinatalist.

Antinatalists are people who seek happiness in life from other people not being born. Antinatalists get an ego boost when other people aren't being born.


Which is a rather shitty way to pursue happiness.

Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example, at the time the act is done there is no one to suffer an injustice by it. Yet it’s clearly an injustice no? — khaled

When do you believe that life/personhood starts? At conception, birth, 18 years of age ...?



Suppose there would a Lebensborn kind of maternity camp for prospective mothers. A new building, ready for use, and a couple of buses of women of childbearing age on the way to said camp. These women are already pregnant, or intend to become pregnant at said camp (which has all the facilities necessary for that). Schopenhauer2, resentful of the maternity project, poisons the drinking water at the camp with a poison that would make the women abort, become infertile, or give birth to defective babies. Yet he gets caught, as Hilda the Chief of the Maternity Ward catches him in the act.

What injustice did Schopenhauer2 do? Remember, the women are still on the way in the buses.
He committed acts against public health, he committed attempted manslaughter, attempted grave bodily harm. But he did not commit manslaughter, murder, or grave bodily harm. The law has a special category for _attempted_ criminal acts. And this is the extent of Schopenhauer2's injustice, nothing more.

When do you believe that life/personhood starts? At conception, birth, 18 years of age ...? — baker

Let's say life starts, idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week 0. Does that make it ok? Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right?

Your example is about someone poisoning people. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Let's say life starts,idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week 0. Does that make it ok? Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled

No, "idk" is not good enough. In your scenario, everything hinges on where you place the beginning of life/personhood.

Secondly, your scenario is partly analogous to putting poison in a well and claiming that as long as nobody drinks from the well, there is no injustice. But what if you don't warn people about the poisoned water? What if people have no other well to drink from, except this one?

In your scenario, everything hinges on where you place the beginning of life/personhood. — baker

Right. So:

Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled

It doesn't matter when you say life starts there is always a point before that when the genetic modification could have been done. This is why you read a paragraph until the end and don't nitpick the start to dismiss the rest.

Secondly, your scenario is partly analogous to putting poison in a well and claiming that as long as nobody drinks from the well, there is no injustice. — baker

That's not my claim that's yours:

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice. — baker

This is why you read a paragraph until the end and don't nitpick the start to dismiss the rest. — khaled

Imagine, for a moment, that I'm just trying to make the conversation more concise.

It doesn't matter when you say life starts there is always a point before that when the genetic modification could have been done. — khaled

Okay, you could even genetically modify the sperm before it meets the ovum.

If you did it with the intention that the man/the sperm would produce defective offspring, that would, at that time, make it an attempt to cause harm to the prospective offspring. Since you did the genetic modification with the intention to hurt someone (even though that person may not even exist yet), the principle "When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice" does not apply. Once the offspring would be born and it could be shown that their defects are due to your genetic modification, you would be guilty of causing harm (the degree of the guilt depending on the degree of the defect).

The key terms in such a case are intention and attempt.

The problem with such cases is, of course, that they can be very difficult to prove. (However, every day, the police lock up terrorists who are caught attempting an attack.)

Also, if something is a process with a temporal duration, then the process needs to be taken as a whole, not as discrete, separate parts that have nothing to do with eachother. For example, if you set a bomb to a car and set it so that it will go off when the car is started, that doesn't mean you're innocent for as long as nobody gets into the car and turns the key.

The key terms in such a case are intention and attempt. — baker

When would you say someone intends to do harm? If they know their actions will result in harm, does that automatically mean they intend to do harm? If this genetic modification is some religious ritual, and so the intention isn't to harm, but to fulfill the religious duty, in other words, there is no malice behind it, would it still count as "intent to harm"?

Back when we were a young species: Work, if it did have any meaning, meant foraging, hunting and farming and the point of it all was simple - calories.

Now: Work is not just for calories, there seems to be something more to working, not all of it good.

When would you say someone intends to do harm? — khaled

When they intend to do harm. Sometimes, people make this intention clear, like when they say in public "I'm going to shoot Frank Miller dead".

If this genetic modification is some religious ritual, and so the intention isn't to harm, but to fulfill the religious duty, in other words, there is no malice behind it, would it still count as "intent to harm"? — khaled

That looks more like negligence.