While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is antinatalism the answer?

Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering?

Empirical in that it can be tested/investigated by experiment.
Yes, you can test the emotional responses of individuals, either in a lab or even personally in a social environment. We do it every day in our relationships, do we not? I still don't see the contradiction you are suggesting I have made. I am sure you can clearly highlight it more convincingly. — universeness

Ah okay yes it was just confusing as scientists base their empirical evidence on objectively measurable/replicable/repeatable results that can be performed by any other scientist and get the same outcome.

Whilst individuals base their empirical evidence on their own individual observations and beliefs about one another. So it seems the criteria (subjective) or (objective) to be empirical differs depending on who you ask. That's why I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by your use of the term.

Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes? — universeness

Yes you're right. That was the confusion I had, I needed clarification that you used the 2 forms depending on situational context.

. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense. — universeness

On the contrary I think consciousness is fundamentally possible to occur because of how physics is set up (quantum and Newtonian). Especially the quantum phenomenon of determination of a result through observation.

I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree.

This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not? — universeness

It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god.

What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard.

Empirical is defined as:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic:
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms:
observed · seen · factual · actual · real · verifiable · first-hand · experimental · experiential · practical · pragmatic · hands-on · applied · heuristic · empiric

So, empirical evidence is not exclusively tethered to the rigor demonstrated in the scientific method. We also have the ability to apply a 'credence level,' or error margins etc.

Ah okay yes it was just confusing as scientists base their empirical evidence on objectively measurable/replicable/repeatable results that can be performed by any other scientist and get the same outcome. — Benj96

So, if we consider the application of rigor in the scientific method and the broader range that may be applied in general terms for the label 'empirical evidence.' When posters like @bartricks try to employ propositional logic, to help posit the existence of an omnipotent, which either has a desire to create lifeforms which can suffer horribly (akin to the problem of evil) or he posits, it cannot have such a desire, as it is also omnibenevolent. He then suggests that his conflation of logic actually proves that any theist who considers the problem of evil, a challenge to their theism, MUST declare themselves antinatalist because such an omni god would not create this world. So therefore, they MUST vote for our extinction as he would.
You are moaning at me for calling his proposal and the logic he is using, bullshit. I think I am quite justified in using that term as an emotive way of emphasising how intensely I think he is wrong. Why does my need to express that emotional intensity, warrant your, in my opinion, over the top response to it. You felt that it was valid to express your own emotive reactions, such as;

I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible? — Benj96

Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" — Benj96

Bring it on. Give me all you got. — Benj96

I'm eager to hear all about it. I'm not one bit intimidated or afraid of having such an argument. Let it all be put out there. — Benj96

Nothing is BS — Benj96

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so". — Benj96

I accept that you did apologise for some of the above attacks, but I just list them to highlight your own choice of 'turn of phrase' when you feel incensed and yet your annoyance is based on displeasure at my use of the term BS and that you think I pose as an arrogant 'know it all.'
Can you see the contradiction here?

Yes you're right. That was the confusion I had, I needed clarification that you used the 2 forms depending on situational context. — Benj96

:up:

I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree. — Benj96

Is 'totally absurd' merely your polite version of BS? :naughty: So you agree with me that solipsism is nonsense? Are you declaring yourself a panpsychist?

It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god. — Benj96

Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin:

factual — universeness

observed — universeness

See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it.

Others observe John and determine that he is not upset. They say his lack of sadness is fact because they have observed it.

They may determine that because the vast majority determined that John is not sad then Anna must be wrong. However this cannot be proven as absolute. What we are missing is John's input as he is the only one that knows johns internal mood/mindstate. And furthermore everyone is observing based on preconceived ideas - of the relationship between observed behaviour and emotional state. None of which are considering addressing their own preconceptions instead of making a judgement about John.

All of them are using the same empirical approach with differing conclusions.

Is 'totally absurd' merely your polite version of BS? — universeness

Haha I like your humour. Yes I suppose its the formal academic equivalent.

Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin: — universeness

We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneous assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. But you clarified then well and then I understood. So I can totally relate.

What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard. — Benj96

It probably suffices to type that we both agree that the word 'perfect' (as in perfect method/system/person etc) is another one of those concepts, it is not a measure.
What is the most accurate measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum?
Is it 299,792,458 metres per second?
Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that!
Given another million years of science, will we get the 'perfect' measure?
What would be the significance if we did?
My current answer? YEP, you guessed it, I have absolutely no f****** idea but I certainly wont use that to suggest that the fact that it seems that the human race cannot reach any perfections, depite the fact the concept exists means that we are forced to slot in an omni god of the gaps, declare that humans will always be imperfect and will suffer for being so and therefore we should surrender to the BS peddled by the anti-life posters. Hah! Those pessimists can take a running jump off the highest cliff on Earth along with any other mindless lemmings. Sorry, if you find my 'turn of phrase' pressing.

My intentions was to highlight that nothing is BS in the dynamic of "ALL" opinions and their interrelation with one another. Beliefs are believed to be true by the people who hold them otherwise they wouldnt be held.

That is a matter of demonstrating patience and empathy for people with what one thinks are BS beliefs. Because just saying "that is BS" is pretty useless in resolving the contradiction.

To dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude.

Hence/thus exemplified by what I said here:

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so". — Benj96

It wasn't designed as a personal attack but a device to implore you to explain. As only through discourse do we elicit whether we are on board with one anothers ideas or not.

Being resolutely sure of your opinion, confirming your own reasoning without sharing it with others. Without speaking your mind leaves nothing left for others to do but to define you by your own certainty - as some sort of god (know it all) and one they have no access to because they will not demonstrate this reasoning as to why they know it all. A good omniscient being would share that knowledge with others instead of stomping on the ground and just reiterating that they know it all. Claim is there, but no evidence.

Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that! — universeness

The same goes for irrational numbers like Pi, Phi, and e. We can always improve the accuracy but because they never repeat themselves we can never make that accuracy discrete and full/complete. It would have to go on to infinity. So the accuracy we have for irrational things will never be perfect.

Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities.

See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it. — Benj96

Well no, as Anna's output can be incorrect despite her input having a measure of validity when described as empirical. John does look upset/sad but perhaps he just ate something that didnt agree with him and he is not actually mentally sad, just physically compromised. John can provide verbal conformation either way. We know about observational relativity, and we consider it when dealing with empirical evidence. We know observers in space can report CORRECTLY, different results for the same observation such as the particle was observed or there was no particle based on their frame of reference.

Haha I like your humour. Yes I suppose its the formal academic equivalent. — Benj96

:up:

We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneously assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. So I can totally relate. — Benj96

:up:

But to dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude. — Benj96

The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case. If you were debating Donald Trump in front of a mixed ability audience. You would leave yourself almost defenceless, if you are unwilling to attack him. His fake news and conflated logic would defeat you in the minds of many of the audience because you were too busy making sure you were not 'inconsiderate' towards him and meantime so many minds are being poisoned by his BS.

Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities. — Benj96

But do you agree that it is concept areas such as infinity, paradox, perfection, the omnis etc which are the few remaining places that characters such as antinatalists and theists still find their pulpits.

The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case — universeness

Well I am an optimist. You can call it naive if you wish. But its just in my nature. I assume the best until shown the worst. I also think people can and do often change their views when faced with well reasoned discourse - they can become more or less honourable. That's their perogative. Mine, is to present the arguments I have available to me.

Well no, as Anna's output can be incorrect — universeness

Anna's conclusion could be wrong yes. John may be perfectly fine.

But Anna's conclusion could be the only correct one (if John felt comfortable around only Anna and expressed his sadness, but then saved face in front of everyone else because of not feeling comfortable to express his true feelings, lying about Anna claiming he was sad the the larger group to Anna's disbelief.

The verifiability of the true nature of the situation from the perspective of any of the participants within the situation is difficult and limited by what each person is willing to explain.
Not all of the information is accessible to each person.

Only us the audience, third observers - have the details of each of their beliefs and their behaviours. And even then still we can only hypothesise the possible choices they may make, but we won't know which until they do.

I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact. Recent examples include the storming of the congress building, personal attack on the family of politicians (Nancy Pelosi's husband) or on the politicians themselves such as the killing of MP Jo Cox in the UK. I could start to list historical assassinations and talk about the rise of fascism in the lead up to WW II but suffice to quote the old favourite. 'Evil thrives when good people do nothing.'
I personally consider antinatalism to be an evil trope which does nothing but attempt to dismiss all human attempts to improve themselves. I will forever combat it.

I will forever combat it. — universeness

Very creditable. But if it ever takes over then it will soon die out. Because we will soon die out. And there's no replacement plan aside from more babies. It's a self-limiting theory.

Yes, but in your Scenario, it turns out that Anna actually did find out the truth of Johns situation because he trusted only her as his confessor.
So, to me, you are suggesting that 'the truth is out there,' but you have to approach with a sceptical mind. Just because YOU THINK an anti-life poster is making logical posits about antinatalism. Do your own dissection of every word they type and their combinatorial interrelationships. If you cannot tear their argument to pieces, then look at the attempts of others to do so. If you still find their arguments compelling, then join them. I suspect this process is the reason why they continue to have a tiny number of convinced followers.

I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact. — universeness

Yes I agree. Hence why I discuss things with people (big things, trivial things, personal ones, political ones). Arguing for what's right/ideals is activism despite people's use of the term "actions speak louder than words". They forgot that speaking is action. I try to raise awareness through discussion of both my own fallability (wherever the flaw in my thinning exists now) and that of others.

I also dislike antinatalism. I did a whole discussion with someone earlier not sure which thread where I expressly disagreed with it.
What I do believe though us that it's not going anywhere. That's why I said no beliefs are BS, in the sense that they exist for a reason - even if the only reason is to stand as an unreasonable thing to think. Just as evil isn't going anywhere as a concept. As without it we don't really have free will and good woukd be meaningless.

People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others.

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

:up:

Yep, no life, no anti-life people to complain about their self-awareness.

I think we just saw a flash of popon-popoff antinatalism. Anyone else notice?

I think we just saw a flash of popon-popoff antinatalism. Anyone else notice? — universeness

I sure did.
I quite like living tbh. Despite what they may say.

I also dislike antinatalism. I did a whole discussion with someone earlier not sure which thread where I expressly disagreed with it.
What I do believe though us that it's not going anywhere. That's why I said no beliefs are BS, in the sense that they exist for a reason - even if the only reason is to stand as an unreasonable thing to think. Just as evil isn't going anywhere as a concept. As without it we don't really have free will and good woukd be meaningless.

People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others. — Benj96

Casually associating AN with evil, whilst ironically, no one has to experience evil in the first place with AN. It’s a political position with ANs against paternalistic assumptions about unnecessarily creating unnecessary harms for others, and assuming for others that they must like this game or kill themsemves (a hard thing to go through with).

People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others. — Benj96

I think you summarise the situation correctly, regarding the anti-life topic.

Casually associating AN with evil, whilst ironically, no one has to experience evil in the first place with AN — schopenhauer1

No one gets to experience anything good then either do they? Would you be satisfied taking away all the people in love (with eachother, with their kids, with their jobs, with food, entertainment friends etc, people living their life the best they can and enjoying it) just for the sake of not existing at all? Just so that two opposites can be neutralised and nothing can or ever occurs again.

Sounds super boring tbh.

I sure did.
I quite like living tbh. Despite what they may say. — Benj96

Looks like the aim is at you. Enjoy the spotlight. I think you can easily handle it.