So even if your literally impossible claim were actually correct, it’s still completely irrelevant, because craving an impossible paradise is suffering in itself – and that befalls only the living, not empty void obviously. — Zn0n

Your words ring true, my friend, but only in the past and the present. I'd like to ask you why utopia - the secular version of paradise - is impossible? Is there an inconsistency lurking in the shadows that must, as of necessity, exist in every thought, idea, concept humans are capable of?

induction — Zn0n

I can add little to what the experts have already said about the matter of induction, it's problem is a well known embarrassment to science.

And why do you think you have the right to throw others in suffering because you believe in something that allegedly will happen at some point.
How many victims is throwing down the meat-grinder to achieve something that is a) impossible and b) completely unnecessary justified? Is that number bigger than 0 for you? If so why? — Zn0n

Nobody is in control here. You speak as if there's someone who's behind all of this, someone who dispatches souls into the world to, among other things, suffer in unimaginable ways. The universe, for better or worse, like it or not, seems completely autonomous. That being the case, we need to come to terms with the fact that the knight in shining armor will not come. Godot will not arrive. We need to fix our own problems and I won't deny, in fact I can't deny, that suffering is, well, a big, big issue. However, suffering is just one side of the story, right? Could I, for example, travel to another universe and, by way of describing our universe to the denizens of this new universe only mention our suffering? Would I have given them an accurate picture of our universe?

The linguistics of bird-song is also a place where we can find similarities to ourselves. Although both
birdsong and human language are hierarchically organized according to particular syntactic constraints, bird-song structure is best characterized as phonological
syntax, resembling aspects of human sound structure. Many species of birds share with humans a capacity for vocal learning, a crucial factor in speech acquisition. — MSC

To indulge this tangent- I still think there is a difference in the language-use/function in a human vs. animal. Generally we are using it to communicate to others AND self-talk ideas/concepts. Birds can maybe communicate about surroundings, mating, territory, etc. A lot of it is involuntary. Even primates, if forced in research situations, can communicate maybe a couple hundred words, but with no syntax, and again, not very natural. None of this adds up to the kind of language abilities humans have. I wouldn't even call what other animals have language proper, per se, but a communication system. But, I don't care about the exact definition as much as how it functions. Just on a cursory search, what I'm getting at is something like this:

Human language is distinct from all other known animal forms of communication in being compositional. Human language allows speakers to express thoughts in sentences comprising subjects, verbs and objects—such as ‘I kicked the ball’—and recognizing past, present and future tenses. Compositionality gives human language an endless capacity for generating new sentences as speakers combine and recombine sets of words into their subject, verb and object roles. For instance, with just 25 different words for each role, it is already possible to generate over 15,000 distinct sentences. Human language is also referential, meaning speakers use it to exchange specific information with each other about people or objects and their locations or actions. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5525259/#:~:text=Human%20language%20is%20distinct%20from,past%2C%20present%20and%20future%20tenses.

My conclusion for this type of mental difference with other animals, is that we also have the capacity for existential thought. To know of our situation of being in "less than desired circumstances", not JUST experiencing less than desired circumstances. There is a secondary reflection that can happen due to our linguistic/conceptual/social/psychologically mental capacity.

Firstly, thank you for revisiting my response. It is appreciated and I apologise for any offense caused by me, to you. It does say in my bio that I can be a bit of an asshole. Openly admit to that.

I need to go to the store, when I return, I'll give your response the attention it deserves.

To indulge this tangent- I still think there is a difference in the language-use/function in a human vs. animal. Generally we are using it to communicate to others AND self-talk ideas/concepts. Birds can maybe communicate about surroundings, mating, territory, etc. A lot of it is involuntary. Even primates, if forced in research situations, can communicate maybe a couple hundred words, but with no syntax, and again, not very natural. None of this adds up to the kind of language abilities humans have. I wouldn't even call what other animals have language proper, per se, but a communication system. But, I don't care about the exact definition as much as how it functions. Just on a cursory search, what I'm getting at is something like this: — schopenhauer1

Firstly, I'd like to point out that if your OP was a thesis which you were publicly defending, you'd be expected to be able to provide arguments that strengthen the initial premises and give good arguments as to why they aren't false. So I don't think it's a tangent, your initial claims must be scrutinised in order for us to really communicate. I could make an attempt to engage with what followed these initial premises by assuming them to be true for the sake of the argument, but then I'd be forced to be insincere and dishonest with you.

Secondly, I'd say that fundamentally human language is still just a communication system and there are arguments to be made about whether or not we are engaging in this voluntarily or involuntarily. Apes can also learn sign language. There is also something to be said about cognitive abilities to process language the way we do vs biological ability to speak. Some humans are born mute, most animals literally don't have the vocal chords to do what we do. Knowing whether or not thought processes are taking place in the minds of others is different to knowing whether or not an animal can physically talk.

Going back to whales, without knowing the meaning behind whale song, there isn't much we can be sure of when trying to answer the question, do whales have language? You may be right in that they are only communicating about basic biological functions, eating, mating etc, but for all we know, they are having deep philosophical communication about the nature of their individual and collective existence like we do.

The animal kingdom is full of different communication styles and some might not even be something we can perceive. Our ears might not be able to pick up certain frequencies, our noses can't tell the difference between individual rodents, our eyes can miss non-verbal communication and we to use non-verbal communication. (Which lets be honest is probably one of the reasons why so many misunderstandings arise between individuals when communicating purely in written formats.

Are animals not aware of the need to acquire food and shelter? Or is it just an instinct that makes them do it. — Sir2u

So as I was saying with MSC, I recognize that there are capacities in other animals that make them well suited to surviving in their environment. They may even have communication systems. The kind of thought that says, "I hate having to eat my kibble..I hate having to play fetch with this guy.. I hate having to go for a walk all the time..." seems not in the repertoire of dog psychology (or other animals for that matter). That is more-or-less what I'm getting at. Humans, on the other hand, can resent what they are doing at any moment. We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves.

So I think my response to Sir2u applies here:

So as I was saying with MSC, I recognize that there are capacities in other animals that make them well suited to surviving in their environment. They may even have communication systems. The kind of thought that says, "I hate having to eat my kibble..I hate having to play fetch with this guy.. I hate having to go for a walk all the time..." seems not in the repertoire of dog psychology (or other animals for that matter). That is more-or-less what I'm getting at. Humans, on the other hand, can resent what they are doing at any moment. We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

To extend the point so as not to go down rabbit-holes.. I also recognize animals may have preferences. For example, wanting to be in the shade on a hot day. Liking certain foods over other ones. That is not the same as having the evaluative capacity to resent a situation that one has to do.

Yes, very good point, all these cushy biases (“what an opportunity to be alive :)”) are shielded by their own brutal, bias-like enforcer-mechanism: group-think and what strikes me as fascist tendencies (“purge the outsider, there is only the group, and the group is everything”), but “collectivism” describes this as well. — Zn0n

Yes, it is a group-think which reinforces sentiments to keep people in-line. "We all think this antinatalism business is ridiculous right??".. "Yes, we all think this is ridiculous". "Stop griping about life! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! It's all in your mind... You are choosing to suffer.. etc. etc. Any social pressure to not look negatively at the situation itself.

What I’m now struggling with regarding children is how often they scream and cry.
My neighbors created two, and one is a toddler now, and he screams and cries out pretty much every single day, often even several times. Some people may think once a day doesn’t even sound too much, but when was the last time you screamed and cried because you were in such agony.

It’s a torturous sound and I can’t help but project my own suffering that is caused by his screams onto him and think -STFU!-, but know at the same time he is in so much suffering that he screams out and cries because of it, and nobody takes it serious, for one because of how “normal” and “expected” it is that children constantly severly cry.

And I really wonder how people have more than one child. One child may be because of naivity or some the-human-race™-must-be-dragged-out-indoctrination that they fell for, but I hear their screams muffled through (relatively thin) walls, so for them it’s even worse.
And yes they get the “positive parts” of some helpless creature being completely dependent on them and can be bossed around as they see fit. But how does that balance. — Zn0n

Yep, we are in pain from the very beginning.. There is no self-regulation for babies. The unfulfilled needs are out for everyone to see, and it is clear there are a LOT of unfulfilled needs in the human animal from the very start.. But as you say, people keep having them for reasons such as you mention. It can never be for the sake of the future person itself though.

Ignoring what a ridiculous statement that is in context to the comment you replied to, are you saying white (male) humans enslave? Because that's blatantly racist (and sexist).
Ironically it's infact racism and sexism that is one of the excuses that was and is used to enslave others. — Zn0n

Maybe you should crack open a history book or two. Slavery was justified by lots of people simple by explaining that negros and other enslaved peoples were not human because the do not have human reasoning abilities. Even segregationists in the southern united states claimed that the constitution did not apply to black people because the were not human. All men are equal did not apply because the negros were lesser beings.

The whole idea came from the fact that white humans had no idea how to understand the black mind because they had not lived in the black societies. Animal have societies and culture but because we do not understand it some claim it does not exist.

The tendency to enslave others has nothing to do with skin color but level of psychopathy/sociopathy and/or how much they obey a cruel system. — Zn0n

What did I just say? They justified slaver as the use of a lower animal that cannot think like they do for financial gain. The fact that some slave owners were cruel had nothing to do with the reason the good owners kept slaves. To most of the owners, slaves were as big an investment as a modern farmer buying a tractor.

Try doing some reading about slavery, it might enlighten your mind.

The kind of thought that says, "I hate having to eat my kibble..I hate having to play fetch with this guy.. I hate having to go for a walk all the time..." seems not in the repertoire of dog psychology (or other animals for that matter). — schopenhauer1

Do you have pets? If you do you have noticed that some days they want to play around and are lovable with you, other days they are not in the mood to play. Why does that happen? Could that type of action be instinctual?

That is more-or-less what I'm getting at. Humans, on the other hand, can resent what they are doing at any moment. We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

My dogs loved climbing over the fence and running around the neighborhood. For almost a week after I put barbed wire on top of the place they were climbing out 3 of them refused to be petted and would not even come near me. They, like most kids, got over the sulks and we are friends again. Is that more instinctual behaviour?

I think that the problem is not whether they can reason or not but are we smart enough to recognize reasoning when we see it.

Maybe you should crack open a history book or two — Sir2u

What did I just say? — Sir2u

Try doing some reading about slavery — Sir2u

Good luck next time!
If you want to take your own advice, you may wanna start here.

My dogs loved climbing over the fence and running around the neighborhood. For almost a week after I put barbed wire on top of the place they were climbing out 3 of them refused to be petted and would not even come near me. They, like most kids, got over the sulks and we are friends again. Is that more instinctual behaviour?

I think that the problem is not whether they can reason or not but are we smart enough to recognize reasoning when we see it. — Sir2u

I guess I didn't mention you, but I said earlier:

To extend the point so as not to go down rabbit-holes.. I also recognize animals may have preferences. For example, wanting to be in the shade on a hot day. Liking certain foods over other ones. That is not the same as having the evaluative capacity to resent a situation that one has to do. — schopenhauer1

Also, I think your indignation is inappropriate here. I'm not sure why I'm a "speciest" because I recognize animals have different functional mental capacities than humans. There seems to be a lot of condemning here for what most other people do all the time. If I told you a dog can't do advanced calculus, or even recognize the very foundations that would make that possible, that is just pointing to differences in (other) animals and humans. If you then come back and say: "Some animals have a sense of numbers!!", okay, I can agree with that, but that wasn't my claim. That would be either a strawman or a red herring of the point (which was they cannot perform advanced calculus or cannot even begin to understand the foundations thereof). No one is denying animals have various kinds of intelligence, but to not recognize differences because you think this is a sort of bigotry, is getting on the ridiculous side and is possibly hampering your understanding of the actual argument at hand. You are throwing red herrings up on this, and you may not see it. Animals certainly have preferences. Perhaps they are even individual to the animal.. One dog likes fetch more, the other likes tug-of-war. One dog like kibble n' bits, the other likes Purina; yet another likes the fancy organic kind.

If we were to step back, can we admit that humans have certain capacities/mental functions that other animals almost certainly do not? If we cannot admit that, then we can't go much further. It's like asking, "Can we admit that humans don't have the functional capacity to fly without technology?" and you said.. that's being a bigot against humans.

If you want to take your own advice, you may wanna start here. — Zn0n

:lol: :rofl:

Did you read the article you sent me too?
First of all it is not specific to the topic I was talking about. I talked about the negros and other that were counted as non humans and enslaved because of that. The wikipedia article is about white slavery! But it does mention that the muslims had white slaves, is that because they were also considered less than human by the owners?

Then I said that the reason most people had slaves was because of economical reasons not because of hate and cruelty as you said. And the article says basically the same thing, most slavery was about having work done without having to pay for it.

Also, I think your indignation is inappropriate here.

If we were to step back, can we admit that humans have certain capacities/mental functions that other animals almost certainly do not? If we cannot admit that, then we can't go much further. It's like asking, "Can we admit that humans don't have the functional capacity to fly without technology?" and you said.. that's being a bigot against humans. — schopenhauer1

First of all there is no indignation in what I said, unless you think asking questions implies such emotions.

Animals obviously cannot do advanced calculus, but I have never stated that they can. The topic was about the ability of animals to reason, which I certainly do believe a lot of animals can do rather well.

. We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

I did not point this out earlier because I focused on the part about the moods "resentment" being specific to humans. But this statement of yours is clearly not true. Most people never have an original idea in their lives. Most people follow what others have been doing, sometimes for many generations.
Please tell me, how many people do you know that have actually made a contribution to the advancement of human kind? I cannot name one, including myself.

Why would a wolf want to invent a house? They already know how to make burrows to live in. Are we to ascertain from the fact that no wolf has ever built what we consider to be a proper house proof that they cannot reason.

Would you consider the fact that birds build their nests in power distribution towers to be a reasoned action, an instinctual action or a simple possibly stupid mistake?

Then I said that the reason most people had slaves was because of economical reasons not because of hate and cruelty as you said. And the article says basically the same thing, most slavery was about having work done without having to pay for it. — Sir2u

Since we are talking about all animals, I'd like to add to your argument, by pointing out that police dogs receive no formal pay, feed, board and medical care which on the books will say "animal care", by your argument that would be "slave care" considering the dangerous nature of their work, be it suspect apprehension or Contraband searches. They also get trained for the job from a young age and have no knowledge of or choice of another life. They don't have the same sort of informed consent as police officers do and couldn't tell you what a gun or cocaine is. Discussion on that incoming because I think the topic deserves it's own place.

We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Let's address this more directly with the concept of Home.

Many animals seek out shelter.
Some bears like caves.
Bears make beds out of leaves.
Bears prepare winter dens during the summer and caves have been used by the same bear for up to six years as far as the longest human observed cave can make out. Some may have lived in them for longer and them spending summer prepping means they are just in and out of the cave most of the time.
The extinct Ursus Spelaeus or Cave bear may have permanently resided in caves
Bears play.
Bears have family's. Single mothers most of the time.
The fact that bears play suggests they are capable of feeling bored and entertained. Which means they also have some concept of fun.

This is why what I said earlier was really important, the mental differences between us and other animals are differences of degree, not type or kind.

I know it is incredibly boring, but we really really do have to address the concept of boredom, since you have decided to opt for evaluative conceptual ideas as to what animals must do in order to survive, be comfortable and entertained. By your argument I could suffer by being bored of every moment in life and I've got this phone that lets me stay entertained by having this conversation. The bears don't even have that! They are probably more bored than you or I.

Now, if you want you can contribute all of that behaviour to instinct, but only if you're willing to imply that all our behaviour is instinctual as well. Babies don't know words but you can tell they think in impressionistic terms at leas Animals are no different. At a safe distance, we might feel we are superior to other animals. You wouldn't feel so superior on their turf and come face to face with someone who gets the impression that your are lunch and you have nothing to defend yourself with. Hell, we aren't even the only animal that kills for fun. So it might even be the impression that you are a toy. A toy is just a form of tool. What else do some animals also do? Make tools. Orangutans have been known to join together in certain places and soap and lather their hands for no other reason than they seem to enjoy it, not all groups of them do it either, so instinct or culture emergence? Who knows, they might even believe if they do that, they'll live longer for appropriate superstition like impressions. Which isn't wrong in terms of hygiene tbh.

Rounding back to our instincts, babys come out crying, if they are healthy. If they are crying it means they aren't unconscious so it's the first good sign they have made it through the difficult part. Crying uses vocal chords, we all instinctively know how to cry out.

Birds migrate, plan migrations, birds have even been known to change the migration schedules due to how bad they think a hurricane season in the gulf of mexico might be. Which they seem to be able to predict with better accuracy than even we can and we can't even explain how they can do that. I can't quite remember the name but it's found in Delaware. Begins with a W I think.

I can communicate entire concepts to you in sign language, if I hypothetically knew any sign other than thank you, pretty much everything I've said here can be signed. I don't understand what deaf and/or mute people are saying in sign language but I know it's a language.

I know I have thrown quite a lot out there but everything I have said is verifiable.

My conclusion is this;
You can't speak another animals language, whether you're human or not, if the language is conveyed in sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch. Then how in the hell would you or anyone else know whether or not animals pass complex or abstract concepts between each other? Do dogs not maybe learn how another dogs day was by sniffing each other out, or even how yours was? If I got 26 different perfumes could I not tell you a story, in Scent-English just by waving a series of silk clothes in front of your face, in the right order after teaching you which scent applies to which letter of the alphabet? I could even add punctuation Fragrances. It would be hard to learn at first but that's no different than learning how to write. It's just a matter of conditioning.

Good luck figuring out how to explain antinatalism to the Bear! ;)

Edit; Sorry if it kept changing while anyone might have been trying to read. Had to do a number of edits.

The topic was about the ability of animals to reason, which I certainly do believe a lot of animals can do rather well. — Sir2u

See, that's where I think you went off on the wrong track. The premise never stated anywhere a claim about the ability of animals to reason. I did say that we are the only animals that can resent almost any moment. That is a huge difference. Resentment to me, takes a sort of indignation which arises only in a certain kind of cognition (not saying if you don't have this, you can't "reason"). And just like using a computer, reading, using a car, wearing clothes, etc. takes a certain kind of culturally-based, linguistic-based, conceptually-based type of cognition (like a humans) so too resentment takes this kind of cognition. This does not negate other animal abilities to plan or reason at the level they are able to. Nor does it negate other animal abilities to have preferences of a sort.

Why would a wolf want to invent a house? They already know how to make burrows to live in. Are we to ascertain from the fact that no wolf has ever built what we consider to be a proper house proof that they cannot reason.

Would you consider the fact that birds build their nests in power distribution towers to be a reasoned action, an instinctual action or a simple possibly stupid mistake? — Sir2u

So this to me is all a tangent. Wolves cannot build houses (though they can blow them down in fairy tales apparently.. only if pigs live in them :smile:). I have said nothing to indicate that because animals cannot do X activity/mental function that means they cannot reason. You have asserted thus, unnecessarily.

They are probably more bored than you or I. — MSC

Woeful anthropomorphizing. Bears might get "bored", but to compare a bears' boredom to ours would be to not take into account what makes one species "bored" over another. You must take "bear phenomenology" into account and not over analogize. [As a side note, I wonder how many times the phrase "bear phenomenology" has ever been written?]

Which means they also have some concept of fun. — MSC

They have experiences of fun. It may be harder to claim they have a concept of fun. There are literally whole areas of study in philosophy, that concentrate on what concepts area and would take us years to unpack all the literature, but it can be argued that abstractions of a sort like "resentment" (NOT to be confused with anger, sadness, etc.) are only present in linguistic-type, semiotic thinking. There is a sort of "knowing of the situation" and a cultural context and mental representation which it is embedded within. It's like claiming, "that bear is being really haughty towards that other bear". I don't think that would apply in bear context. These are concepts and abstractions that are based on certain modes of living in the world. It's "What it's like to be a human" phenomenology.

My conclusion is this;
You can't speak another animals language, whether you're human or not, if the language is conveyed in sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch. Then how in the hell would you or anyone else know whether or not animals pass complex or abstract concepts between each other? Do dogs not maybe learn how another dogs day was by sniffing each other out, or even how yours was? If I got 26 different perfumes could I not tell you a story, in Scent-English just by waving a series of silk clothes in front of your face, in the right order after teaching you which scent applies to which letter of the alphabet? I could even add punctuation Fragrances. It would be hard to learn at first but that's no different than learning how to write. It's just a matter of conditioning. — MSC

This is just all forms of anthropomorphizing. Dogs do get information, but to then impute things like "how each other's day was" is to combine human-like conceptual thinking into an animal-behavior. Dogs do understand things about each other, but not in a conceptual way (and by conceptual I mean the linguistically generative way humans do). When does this just become absurd? If you want animals that act like humans, watch a cartoon.

anthropomorphizing — schopenhauer1

Coming down on this one word, you only use it because you are assuming that human characteristics are not just animal characteristics in the first place. Since that is actually what we are now debating, I'd like to hear your effective counter argument as to why Anthropomorphizing is wrong. Otherwise your argument in this instance boils down to "Animals can't have human Characteristics, because only we have human Characteristics, because Anthropomorphizing is wrong." Circular logic again.

I don't think you're being very charitable with my arguments here at all.

Do you really not understand what is meant by "cognitive differences of degree, not type"? because it doesn't seem like you do at all. We at least know that animals are engaging with conceptual like thinking in impressionistic terms, the way babies do. They wouldn't be able to function otherwise.

Your entire argument is just woefully unjustified Anthropocentrism So justify it.

linguistically generative way humans do — schopenhauer1

Did I not just mention Body language and the sort of information that can be imparted just by using sign language? I didn't realise you were a cryptographer who has spent all his time in the wild and has proven animals ciphers don't exist through peer reviewed journals. Would you like to link me to your work?

I have no issue with you making your arguments but I highly suggest you do some research in the field of epistemology because you clearly don't know that much about how to justify epistemic claims. By that I suggest you just stop claiming to know things publicly because you don't know enough to even claim to know anything about Animal Psychology, linguistics or Zoosemiotics and that is self evident.

Read Charles Hockett. Then we'll talk.

Some Kalevi Kull too.

I might not respond again today which I apologise for. This is a really good debate and discussion and I appreciate you starting it. I've got to deal with a covid emergency, family members just got positive tests back. :/

Again, this debate of animal communication is not really the debate I am having. Can a chimp discuss the details of Kant's view of metaphysics, or whether today's political climate is crazy? No. Resenting doing the very activities that keep us alive, make us more comfortable, and entertain us, in other words, existential matters, seems to be in the realm of humans. No I have not talked with a penguin to see if this is the case, nor have I dialoged with a koala to see their take on the matter.

But here's the thing MSC, even if you or sir2u is correct.. that would just strengthen the underlying claim.

If there existed a gorilla that in their own self-reflective way "said" to itself "I fuckn' hate stripping these leaves all day to eat", a chimp who said, "OH man, just another day of chasing this monkey to smash its skull in so I can eat it.. such a grind, why can't there be another way?" That just means more creatures in the same boat.

that would just strengthen the underlying claim.

If there existed a gorilla that in their own self-reflective way "said" to itself "I fuckn' hate stripping these leaves all day to eat", a chimp who said, "OH man, just another day of chasing this monkey to smash its skull in so I can eat it.. such a grind, why can't there be another way?" That just means more creatures in the same boat. — schopenhauer1

Only if whether or not a belief is moral, is grounded on moral theories that address pleasure and pain as the be all, end all to the nature of our existence, to justify our moral reasoning. If Antinatalism is immoral, then the point is moot. Or if acting on such a binary moral reasoning system as pain vs pleasure is overly simplistic and isn't being charitable to the evident complexity of the universe amd therefore a moral mistake, then your your underlying claim by acknowledging the possibility of the potential for animal self awareness,

Also, you don't have to agree to this being true now if you feel the argument isn't there, we both know you have your own personal determination to make, the argument can however extend to animal species that have not emerged and another million years might see linguistics Gorillas, operatically meaningful whales. This is just based on the idea that if it could happen for our ancestors, it could happen for their descendents.

Now, a Biocentrist Antinatalism could hypothetically be a possible normative prescription on earth, climate change might see to that, except for space bears. That doesn't mean life isn't suffering and feeling pleasure elsewhere in the cosmos. How do we apply antinatalism to these poor ignorant creatures who know not what they do by procreating? Without essentially just becoming Daleks that also have a plan for self suicide after our glorious purge/crusade is complete and the cosmos is lifeless?

This is why we should subscribe to theories of descriptive contextual relativism, Relativism is in the name but don't be fooled, this theory argues for the existence of objective moral truths and doesn't make claims that it as a theory is based on subjectivity and that there are no moral absolutes. Contextual Antinatalism is something I can get behind, since it can at least be a possible normative prescription and there are some humans and forms of life which by their nature can only bring suffering or can only make their offspring suffer.

Now, how do we reduce our contingent suffering foot print in a way that might actually succeed?

One thing I would appreciate you so much for is if you can justify one thing for me. Why do you think it is immoral for you personally to not have children? Is it just that you think everyone should not do it or is there more to it than that? What are the personal reasons in your eyes. I might not agree with them, just to warn you.

Again, this debate of animal communication is not really the debate I am having. Can a chimp discuss the details of Kant's view of metaphysics, or whether today's political climate is crazy? No. Resenting doing the very activities that keep us alive, make us more comfortable, and entertain us, in other words, existential matters, seems to be in the realm of humans. No I have not talked with a penguin to see if this is the case, nor have I dialoged with a koala to see their take on the matter. — schopenhauer1

If you can tell me why a chimp would even be interested in Kant's views on metaphysics or even his ideas on morality then I might be able to explain why I would not discuss these things with him.
But there again. I could not get my neighbors to discuss him either so they must be chimps in disguise. As I mentioned earlier, negros were not considered humans for exactly the same reasons. And look how wrong the intellectuals were about that.

This is just all forms of anthropomorphizing. — schopenhauer1

Maybe yes, maybe no. But I still say that lack of understanding something is not proof that it does not happen.

As a final request I would like you to answer one question. Would a dog think of you as a lesser being because you do not stick your nose up its backside and bark along with him?

If you can tell me why a chimp would even be interested in Kant's views on metaphysics or even his ideas on morality then I might be able to explain why I would not discuss these things with him.
But there again. I could not get my neighbors to discuss him either so they must be chimps in disguise. As I mentioned earlier, negros were not considered humans for exactly the same reasons. And look how wrong the intellectuals were about that. — Sir2u

@schopenhauer1 Whatever you believe, I sincerely hope you laughed at what he said. Cracked me the fuck up when I got to chimps in disguise, had to show my wife and everything.

Other animals might feel pain, but they don't know to the extent of resent not being in a more optimal state. — schopenhauer1

You are just throwing together many claims, some in which are inconsistent with others you've mentioned, without any form of source or evidence to support them. So I am not convinced simply by your words. I will also say animals do feel pain, not might - especially those have a fully functional nervous system. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Animals-Chapter-4-The-Capacity-of-Animals-to-Experience-Pain-Distress-and-Suffering.pdf - as for the question of resentment that was still not stated in your OP, but you have since shifted the discussion from "dislike" to resentment - compelling evidence observed that some animals have a capacity to feel resentment and other complexities which refutes your claim otherwise. It seems that animals experience things with less persistence/duration, but still have the capacity and do experience complex emotion but lack the ability to ruminate or philosophize (at the highest current degree - humans) - which to my mind, is not a requirement to experience extreme dislike i.e., OP.

When you mention "optimal," state that alludes to morality and well-being. It has been observed that animals of higher degrees of consciousness (i.e., elephants, dolphins, chimps, maybe some dog breeds), have a capacity for morality, thus can comprehend a more "optimal" state of well-being, even if it is lesser than the optimal state of human standard. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html This would be a response ingrained in homeostasis - humans function the same way; as a response because they no choice otherwise, not different from other animals. So then I pose the question: Do animals need to "know of homeostasis" to thrive and recognize the opposite of it is sub-optimal and puts them in a prolonged state of distress? Like humans, I will say no. And the "why" (in the form of existentialism) is not needed.

We've actively observed in behavioral studies of animals that certain species can feel clinical depression - to some extent suicidal depression, anxiety (i.e., separation anxiety - a sense of worry and longing) and other complexities. To my mind, the "optimal" state would be alleviating these anxieties and depressions in animals. But these are in animals with more complex degrees of consciousness. A human degree of consciousness and understanding is not necessarily required to experience complex emotions and altered mood states - but not having the capacity required to ponder or rationalize on the meaning of ones feelings (i.e., logic). But I don't think this itself is necessary to feel a prolonged state of dislike and dread for living/life - as seen in animals that suffer depression after separation from mates or broken bonds.

To then, this brings me back to my second and third paragraph: how much "logic" or ability to "do logic" or do animals have to RUMINATE - in order to experience or "want" an optimal state of well-being (to be a moral agent/moral being)? Certain species seem to have passed this threshold, and to deny this would be more of a categorical mistake if not a human error to evaluate animals - or compare them - to the degree of the human, or else they are not moral agents. Instead it seems like most of the humans "dread for life," comes from their thinking capacity, but this is distinct from other animals at lower levels of consciousness. Because there are no "moral facts," to which are only accessible to higher-degree beings as there are no moral facts - we can conclude that also humans do not require knowledge of 'moral facts' in fact - and then rationalizing them or using logical deduction (of ones feelings) to be considered a moral agent - or execute "morality" and no such knowledge is required. This should be (if we are to have intellectual integrity) consistent with animals.

In some degree, I mentioned this earlier about "exempt" humans that go through periods of disassociation or lapses in reality, altered states of consciousness, neurological disorders/damage, etc -- yet they are still viewed as moral agents with a capacity for higher order thinking in your previous post. All in all, your posts seem quite anthrocentric. So why this inconsistency other than a bias of some sort toward animals perceived to be as "lesser" than the human?

It does vary from animal species to animal species (e.g., elephant/dolphin vs rat/mice). In less complex animals, they may be possibly reacting to the pleasure and pain balance. We see this in humans as well. You may find this interesting:

https://neurosciencenews.com/pleasure-pain-brain-15367/

One thing I would appreciate you so much for is if you can justify one thing for me. Why do you think it is immoral for you personally to not have children? Is it just that you think everyone should not do it or is there more to it than that? What are the personal reasons in your eyes. I might not agree with them, just to warn you. — MSC

It would be the same reason for anybody- not to unnecessarily create the conditions for necessary and contingent suffering which will inevitably befall a new person.

- as for the question of resentment that was still not stated in your OP, but you have since shifted the discussion from "dislike" to resentment - compelling evidence observed that some animals have a capacity to feel resentment and other complexities which refutes your claim otherwise. It seems that animals experience things with less persistence/duration, but still have the capacity and do experience complex emotion but lack the ability to ruminate or philosophize (at the highest current degree - humans) - which to my mind, is not a requirement to experience extreme dislike i.e., OP. — Cobra

Can animals have thoughts of an existential nature? That is the gist of the thoughts I am discussing.

Can animals have thoughts of an existential nature? That is the gist of the thoughts I am discussing. — schopenhauer1

It's a good question that deserves a good answer. I don't think either of us can be reasonably certain. That's not a good answer but it's what I am reasonably certain of at least. I know that I want to believe that animals can have thoughts of an existential nature. I'd maybe accept evidence of my dog trying to comfort me in a strange almost empathetic way when I myself am feeling Existential dread or anxiety. I could maybe accept as evidence, wild animals who save other animals from death. Including saving us.

Serious question; what you going to do if Re-incarnation is real and you come back as something non-human with existential angst?

I'm really tired. I'll probably need to take a break from this for a few days. It's been a pretty traumatic week. I've had lots to think about.

I'd maybe accept evidence of my dog trying to comfort me in a strange almost empathetic way when I myself am feeling Existential dread or anxiety. I could maybe accept as evidence, wild animals who save other animals from death. Including saving us. — MSC

I dont think animals displaying empathy is the same as existential dread. Theres a lot of equivocating and I think there are whole areas of cognition, only humans have capacity for. No I'm not going to provide articles that prove animals dont ponder their existential situation :roll: anymore than i need a paper to prove humans cant breathe underwater or fly naturally.

This whole tangent isnt even about the topic which is the fact that we can resent every action we have to do in the course of every or any day. What does that tell us?
@Sir2u And this is not the same as preferring more optimal outcomes. I can outwardly show behavior that indicates that I don't like this food as much as another, let's say (eat it more slowly, unpleasant facial expression, etc.) and can then point to food I do prefer. That is not the same as literally resenting the fact that I have this need to eat, and this need bothers me in the first place. One is very contexted to situation, the other is an existential understanding of my position as
a being who has to need things. That is what I thought to be an obvious difference to something like a dog preferring a certain type of food versus a human being able to comprehend the situation of living itself.

Added more there.
Notice in the OP:

Yes, you can have depressed animals, but not ones that wish they were never born. Not ones that know they don't live in a utopian world. Not ones that can at any moment, hate what they have to do to get by.[/u]

So where does that leave humans? The existential animal that just keeps on going, knows we don't have to, but does it anyways.. is not driven by real instinct in decisions other than the limits of fear of pain and the unknown. A fish swims in its tank, and doesn't know or care why. A tiger chases a zebra and doesn't know and care why. — schopenhauer1

Can animals have thoughts of an existential nature? That is the gist of the thoughts I am discussing. — schopenhauer1

This one sentence is all you offer in response to my post? I addressed this - to me it is not so much can animals have "existential" thoughts, but whether animals have a capacity to ruminate in duration which requires degrees of consciousness that animals as of currently (to our knowledge) do not reach, because it is this that allows time for certain complexities to develop which then usually leads to 'thoughts of existential nature' as we see in humans, but it is not so much the lack of such thoughts in animals as demonstrated in my links, but maybe the persistence and duration in which they occur to be of interesting significance (vide Bekoff., Panksepp). Humans may have a desire to "not be born," but animals have a capacity to desire death. But I do find your post anthrocentric to a degree because it assumes human consciousness is the highest degree of consciousness that can be attained by animals, it is highly likely there exists non-human animals elsewhere with higher degrees of consciousness to where "existential thoughts," do not plague or exasperate them. I would say "existential thoughts," are quite primitive and come from neurotic lower degrees of consciousness, in fact, I'd even say it arises from being one of the most stupid, in comparison to a more advanced brain.

But this to me raising a further question, are non-human animals (chimps, elephants) and so forth, less stupid than us humans - not necessarily more intelligent? In some ways, I would say yes. To me then it is not so much a capacity of lack/having the capacity for existential thoughts regarding animals, but instead humans lacking the capacity to acquire the aptitude to ignore them. So what does this mean? Are intelligent moral animals, such as Elephants and Dolphins actually functioning at "lower capacity" or have they simply surpassed the need to ruminate on existential thoughts as humans in this regard? A more advanced animal would also be almost indistinguishable from the elephant in terms of existential dread.

This is mostly a biology question; which is why I gave you scientific answers and sources to your question, but in later posts you begin calling the moral framework of animals into question. You are all over the place. The other half of what you are saying is just a bunch of empty assertions with absent arguments that need to be addressed before moving any further.