The whole life is a kind of obstacle course, forced on us from the moment of conception and even way back to the big bang. A funny game God created. — Ozymandy

And yet we keep adding more contestants.

And yet we keep adding more contestants. — schopenhauer1

Why shouldn't we? Life is beautiful. And contestants die. We need obstacles.

We need obstacles. — Ozymandy

Why? This seems paternalistic.

What's got father to do with it? Without obstacles you float around like a lost spaceship. You need to get a grip. I think you see obstacles in a different light as I do. I like competition, fights, polemics.

I like competition, fights, polemics. — Ozymandy

Why should others go through obstacles because you think it's good (at the time you made the decision for that person at least). It's one thing to bring obstacles upon yourself, quite another to decide that you want to birth more people to experience obstacles.

Why should others go through obstacles because you think it's good (at the time you made the decision for that person at least). It's one thing to bring obstacles upon yourself, quite another to decide that you want to birth more people to experience obstacles. — schopenhauer1

I didnt say I turn them on other people. If they're not interested...let them be.

If they're not interested...let them be. — Ozymandy

So I'm talking about procreation.. Procreation brings people which have to go through obstacles.. Ergo, procreation leads to creating in a fashion "an obstacle course" for other people. Why should we procreate people who will have to go through the obstacle course?

I don't disagree with this, but no one has found a better way. The closest thing in a kind of scale that was massive were communist revolutions which just led to more suffering. I just think Chernobyl, Stalin, Mao, and the rest. The game is the game. One cannot escape the game. — schopenhauer1

We can play this game. I think it is evident that there is no single capitalist society which exists in the world. Same with communism. As stated by Smith and Marx and later developed by different figures, such societies could not exist.

There are examples of real democracies like the Kibbutz in Israel, or the Spanish Civil War in which people decided to work affairs out for themselves, free of "Gods and masters". Orwell speaks about this insightfully in Homage to Catalonia.

But this would be a diversion from the main point, I suspect.

And collateral damage? Why does "missed happiness" matter (if no one exists to miss it)? What are people creating more people for? If you are alive.. Be HAPPY without forcing others into the game. Why must YOUR HAPPINESS be contingent on ANOTHER PLAYER? — schopenhauer1

You are assuming by default that suffering is the end-point, be all of life. So If I tell you, where am I harming anybody by listening to a song or reading a novel? You can always say, they suffered tremendously to create such works, as they were based on frustration, sweat, disappointment, etc.

I don't think you can neatly and easily separate acts based on purity, as in this one activity involves no suffering at all. Or conversely, that this suffering can lead to happiness at the end of the process. I just say, that if you ask a random person if they would like to live life, they'd say yes. It's a miracle to be alive, given the available evidence.

But you think it's a curse. I don't think people think like this and I don't think they're deluded. You can say life is suffering. Sure. You can say life is a miracle. Yes as well. It's not a zero sum game.

Yet, if people are individuals and are not some Borg (group-mind), why should your happiness be contingent on someone else playing the game? Are we not creative enough not to involve another person having to play the game? — schopenhauer1

I don't plan on having kids, not because of AN, I just think the cost of having them outweighs the benefits they provide, including love and care as well as suffering.

I do agree that we should not put our satisfaction solely on other people. We live and die our own lives. But I think social contact is necessary for everybody, even if it entails suffering.

Try writing one post focusing on the good things in life, unironically. It would be interesting to see. Cause I get the impression you would not be able to. Prove me wrong.

Why should we procreate people who will have to go through the obstacle course? — schopenhauer1

Why not. I'm glad I was procreated! I love life though I was depressed for a long time. People have made a mess of the world!

You are assuming by default that suffering is the end-point, be all of life. So If I tell you, where am I harming anybody by listening to a song or reading a novel? You can always say, they suffered tremendously to create such works, as they were based on frustration, sweat, disappointment, etc. — Manuel

:ok:

We can play this game. I think it is evident that there is no single capitalist society which exists in the world. Same with communism. As stated by Smith and Marx and later developed by different figures, such societies could not exist.

There are examples of real democracies like the Kibbutz in Israel, or the Spanish Civil War in which people decided to work affairs out for themselves, free of "Gods and masters". Orwell speaks about this insightfully in Homage to Catalonia.

But this would be a diversion from the main point, I suspect. — Manuel

It's not necessarily a diversion. My point is survival and the limitations of being humans in a world, make it a non-starter that one can change the game. Transhumanism, or whatever utopia, just doesn't seem to come about any time soon, if at all.

But you think it's a curse. I don't think people think like this and I don't think they're deluded. You can say life is suffering. Sure. You can say life is a miracle. Yes as well. It's not a zero sum game. — Manuel

But you didn't answer the question at hand which was about what you liking the game has to do with bringing more people into the game. Can't we be creative enough not to assume what others should want in such a drastic way?

Try writing one post focusing on the good things in life, unironically. It would be interesting to see. Cause I get the impression you would not be able to. Prove me wrong. — Manuel

I have before discussed what might be deemed as "intrinsic goods".

Try writing one post focusing on the good things in life, unironically. It would be interesting to see. Cause I get the impression you would not be able to. Prove me wrong — Manuel

You're good! :blush:

Why not. I'm glad I was procreated! I — Ozymandy

Ergo, another player should feel the same? Why is your happiness tied to someone else playing the game as well? Why are you the arbiter of what someone else should play?

I have before discussed what might be deemed as "intrinsic goods". — schopenhauer1

Excuse me for sayin but what are "intrinsic goods"? Philo-babble, in my eyes...

Ergo, another player should feel the same? — schopenhauer1

Where did I say that? Ergo, you assign me things I don't want to.

It's not necessarily a diversion. My point is survival and the limitations of being humans in a world, make it a non-starter that one can change the game. Transhumanism, or whatever utopia, just doesn't seem to come about any time soon, if at all. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps. It's plausible. I wouldn't hold my breathe for transhumanism. It's a noble goal. But I think they think science is like I don't know God or something. They tremendously exaggerate what we have achieved and have very confused notions of "uploading minds", that fall apart easily, I think.

But you didn't answer the question at hand which was about what you liking the game has to do with bringing more people into the game. Can't we be creative enough not to assume what others should want in such a drastic way? — schopenhauer1

You and I can, because we don't want children. You, because you are an AN. Me, because, I don't like them.

But it's a natural instinct in people. Like creativity or looking for patterns in nature or wanting company or doing something meaningful. Look, ask most teens (assuming they don't have severe mental deficiencies) if they want to live life even if life WILL include death, loss, frustration and anything you can think of. Most will say yes, they're grateful for being in the game.

You can call it delusion if you want. I call it life. But if life IS suffering, then what are we discussing here? We'll go back to you saying people are forcing others to play the game, whereas I'll reply by saying most people don't think life is "forced" on them. Granted, some do, like you, but you're an exception. Which is fine.

I have before discussed what might be deemed as "intrinsic goods". — schopenhauer1

If you can provide a link or point me to a thread, I'd look at it.

You're good! :blush: — Ozymandy

Thank you.

And welcome to the forums. May you have fun and share ideas.

Thank you! I like your style! Nice writing up here! Especially about that science stuff. I like to write myself. And a lot of other stuff as well. You'll get to know it. By my words only.

Sounds like a plan. :ok:

I wonder, is @Inyenzi still around? We've had really good discussions on these matters.

You are right about one thing though. Science is forced upkn people. From childhood on colorful young children are turned in its obedient slaves. These young ones gain power and make others play the game of loan slaves or they ruin the world with their inventions.

Sounds like a plan. :ok: — Manuel

Yes! It's all planned in true wickedness. I'll let alloya know... :smile:

How appropiate your photograph. For this thread.

would you be willing to answer those three or at least one of those questions — schopenhauer1

No, because your game is rigged in favor of very depressing conclusions:

Does that really matter when the outcome is the same (the person plays the game of life?). — schopenhauer1

It is almost if not exactly the same in terms of amount of choices allotted (play the game, or die of depredation, suicide, and poverty. — schopenhauer1

Life itself doesn't offer much beyond it's own game, homelessness, and suicide. — schopenhauer1

On previous occasions I've acknowledged that your anti-natalist view of the world has some validity and merit. The world we are born into is no Big Rock Candy Mountains of hobo fame:

I'm headed for a land that's far away
Besides the crystal fountains
So come with me, we'll go and see
The Big Rock Candy Mountains
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
There's a land that's fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night
Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees
The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains — Harry McClintock

There's more, but you get the idea--some sort of paradise.

This world is mostly not paradisiacal. On the other hand, if one is even slightly lucky, life is not a living nightmare either, most of the time.

We are here, without having granted permission, suffering or not suffering because of everything that happened in the last 4 billion years (the history of the solar system, our planet, life, evolution, etc.

Plus, for those who don't like how they got here, it will all be over soon enough. It will all be over soon enough for those who LIKE the way they got here, too. So life sucks, but it is short.

I changed it today, funnily enough. Yeah, life feels like that often enough Sisyphean. But to go to anti-natalism to these extremes seems to me to color one's vison in a way that fundamentally distorts everything.

But isn't that the case with our reality? We are born as embryonic flesh bags on this planet and eventually, we become flesh bags and end up decomposing into the ground. That in itself is a game of sorts.
You are born, you do monotonous chores, earn money to survive and overcome the "obstacles", possibly procreate and eventually fall into the arms of the grim reaper.
The only way out of the game that is our reality is suicide. Transcending the superficial concepts of our making and accelerating the motion of our lives. The villain's idea was built in much the same way, you either prolong your life in the game or die, there is no in between much like life.
One could argue that being "forced" to do this by another entity or creature is injustice, but there is no justification as to why it truly is.

Except all these examples happen when we are already born — schopenhauer1

Of course. The question was "What counts as "forcing" people into a game?". If you are not born yet, you are not "people"! :grin:

But why should people play a game? — schopenhauer1

If it's by their own will, I guess for fun, hobby, passtime, ... If forced, then they don't have a choice...
If on the other hand you mean why someone would force people to play a game instead of doing something else, e.g. labour, the I guess also for fun. I've seen a couple of movies where rich people captured a number of persons and let them free in a vast protected area and gave freedom as a price to anyone who kill another captured personon. There ara a lot of similar cases (Russian roulette, etc.) This is their perverted idea of game!

It's a philosophical idea that what if people were severely limited but people didn't realize it, and yet were still happy.. Plato's Cave might be another example of this. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.
But this sounds quite logical. A harder case/test would be if you do realize that you are imprisoned! Can you be still happy (or at least not miserable)?
Some inmates enjoy prison! They have free shelter and food that they cannot find outside!
In fact, it is better to find ways to get allong well than to feel and act oppressed and imprisoned all the time. This is quite rational. It's better survival!

This is their perverted idea of game! — Alkis Piskas

Can't procreating another person into the world, be considered this? The injustice happens once born. straight away, as a game was forced. Suicide is the only option out, which is also cruel. Best not start it for anyone.

One could argue that being "forced" to do this by another entity or creature is injustice, but there is no justification as to why it truly is. — TheSoundConspirator

I am beginning to think paternalistic "thinking this is good for someone else" may be an unjust reason. One's own sense of what is "right for another person" overlooks the entity that would be created's dignity. In the procreation scenario, the only thing that doesn't seem to be overlooking the dignity of the person playing the game, is thinking in terms of prevention of harms. One is not overlooking dignity by preventing all future harm for that person.. One is violating dignity once putting them into an inescapable game. Putting anyone in an inescapable game, because you think it is good, is a violation of sorts.

But why would putting someone into an inescapable game because YOU deem it to be a good game, just? How is this not a violation somewhere? Put someone in a game and if they want to opt out, they can commit suicide. Something seems off. Call it "paternalistic reasoning that violates dignity of new player". Anything assuming that a player MUST play an inescapable game, and does not put harm prevention above any other consideration, would be using that person. Why MUST someone be born because YOU deem life X, Y, Z? Mind you that question isn't asking what X, Y, Z is but how any reason can actually be legitimate.. I like something therefore, someone else SHOULD play the game too.

I'll go with a dictionary definition: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants". I don't think this is abundant in the unborn. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, why is not being around at time X, but being affected at time Y, not count as a force? Any number of things can be justified with this notion. — schopenhauer1

I was showing the lack of freedom in the unborn. As I have already acknowledged, the unborn are being forced into existence, but in the alternative the unborn are being forced not to exist. In the former, the unborn would end up with more freedom overall.

So is it only about amount of pain and pleasure for you? Is not the collateral damage something more than a statistic? It's easy to discount it when one is just philosophizing and abstracting. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I don't feel anything other than good and bad feelings matter. At the end of the day, my moral foundation is no more objectively right or wrong than anyone else's, but it's still worth debating moral questions, as our positions may be inconsistent with our goals.