A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything m, people woukdnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death. — Benj96

I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death!

Who is the someone? — Benj96

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

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

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

"Possibly" being the key word. — Benj96

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

Ignorance is not an excuse. — Tzeentch

Ah I see so we must be omniscient before bringing anything into existence. No room for any answers being still unknown? How's that pursuit of omniscience going for you?

One more question: if you think it's immoral for parents to ever bring children into the world do you therefore resent your own parents? Do you despise them? Or do you think they are good people just trying to do their best? Is it fair to blame everything on one/two people? Do you believe that's a mature or grown up approach to make parents suffer endlessly because you're not having a good time? Or maybe perhaps we can take control of our own narrative and create our own happiness and self fulfillment?

In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being. — Tzeentch

It's also a gamble with their own well being. They could soon find themselves the scapegoat for any and all of the problems ever faced by their child. Dragged through the mud and tortured relentlessly by someone that resents them.

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

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

So you would consider all species on the earth such as starfish, komodo dragons, bees, wasps and many plant and microbial species to be in your revered judgement, unfortunate species?

I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death! — universeness

Yes I think we can agree that a physically manifested heaven/utopia would be temporally enjoyable but the novelty would soon wear off and become dull and unfulfilling.

Stress can lead to post traumatic growth. For example I got hit by a car a few months ago. Surely an adverse event that wouldnt occur in a utopia. Whilst the immediacy was very unpleasant, the hindsight was very motivating for me to use the time I have on earth more wisely/constructively. I became more dedicated in my career and relationships with friends. What didn't kill me did indeed in this case make me stronger and more resilient.

It seems then that many "bad things" have silver linings in the end. I don't think I would like to be "bubble wrapped" in heaven where there is no threat, therefore no means to learn, navigate, overcome and feel proud for it.

I do think heaven exists. As a concept. But only an ideal in our minds. Its something lucrative at a distance, from which ambition, inspiration, innovation, knowledge, all the good/virtuous/idealistic characteristics of humanity can be extracted in pieces throughout time to bolster progress and evolve culture.

But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward.

Sure.

But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward. — Benj96

To me, that's where Plato and Aristotle went a little skewed. I think the concept of Platonic perfect forms and Aristotelian ideals are an almost natural progression of the thinking of the atomists such as Democritus. The concept of infinite variety in infinite combination would obviously result in projection towards some idealised, perfect form. But we have to be existents to progress towards such. The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first.
The antinatalists just want to terminate the human story early for the most selfish of reasons it's possible to conceive and that reason, is because they can't come to terms with their own oblivion.
If they could then they would have already gone.

Sure. — Tzeentch

Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT.
Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' for want of a better phrase for happening? Parent can blame parents who can blame parents for the immorality of their existence all the way back to that first vital spark of life.
Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question?
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?

The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first — universeness

I agree with you on the Plato - Aristotle point of digression with one another. But this remark really interests me. Because I'm going to introduce a line of commentary.

I do definitely agree that the omnis/God's posits are a human projection of untenable but desirable ideals. However I also believe that "God" is a rare but possible mind state. A sort of manic, euphoria. A "Eureka!" moment when something major and groundbreaking clicks in one's mind and they're overcome by an acute and intense revelation of new meanings, new insights, new predictive value based on their discovery. This intense "rapture" or "ecstasy" may have been written about in many forms through many disciplines (science. =eureka), (religion =revelation), (psychiatry = mania).

Im not saying they are all the same thing. Perhaps not. Merely suggesting a link. That in a moment of blissful euphoria, overwhelmed by confidence and a sense of knowledge .. One feels like a God.

The danger is not in feeling a godly bliss, perhaps you did discover something authentic, impactful and useful to society. The danger is that in feeling this sensation you make the jump to the assumption that you are infallible thereafter. And that you can commit no harm. And such a sense of entitlement and surity is extremely precarious, likely to do harm indeed.

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

Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are just travelling through the human psyche like the rest of us, trying to apply reason, logic, sense whilst taking into account history, primal fear, origins, emotions, mental illness etc etc.
If you are good enough at that stuff then you can become a 'head doctor' etc. YOU the almighty, ME the immortal, US the creators, they are all part of the human psyche which we project onto a manifestation of some divinity either a mono god or a whole pantheon of gods. Human create god stories. God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably.
We progress from generation to generation when we correct the errors made in previous generations. That's the only way forward that I can perceive.

God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably — universeness

All agreeable statements you've made. One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit.

Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!"

Of course this person channeling their truth, knowing its power of persuasion, its ability to gather a following, would already know this and know that by spreading it they are putting themselves on the line, in harms way.
They would have to accept their fate, that spreading something ideal will bring the wrath of the non-ideal against them. And probably they will be assassinated for what they believe in, but in doing so they demonstrated the highest level of integrity, not shying away or resorting to lying or violence in order to speak their mind.

The killing of such a person ties up the loose ends. If their belief is based on benevolence and unwillingness to put themselves before others, to be selfless, their death is the final proof that their truth was the truth. A good one. A beneficial one.
It would be a demonstration of pure goodness being destroyed by hatred because good will never destroy anything for its own purposes, only offer choice. Such a person would be immortalised through legacy. Considered a god only after they proved their belief by being murdered for it.

Haven't we seen this before? Who has done such things? History has shown us many martyrs which were condemned or assassinated because their beliefs were too dangerous for the most self interested of us, to the false gods amongst men, to condone.

A criminal offence that was unjust. Forbidden fruit.

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

Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism. — Tzeentch

Yes it is, as it establishes that only those who reproduce sexually as opposite genders have the CHOICE to reproduce or not and that is what antinatalism pivots on. The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not?

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

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. Yet all species on Earth demonstrate the natural imperative of reproduction even to the extent of the removal of that choice, as is the case for asexual species so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value.

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

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

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

It is very relevant, you just don't want to admit it is because it destroys the foundation your antinatalism is based on, human choice to reproduce. It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe, then combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time. Can you not understand that this makes your antinatalism futile and pointless.

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

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

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

If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe that combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time — universeness

Exactly what i said earlier! You're right Universeness.

Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.

Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it — Benj96

One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit. — Benj96

A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent.

Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. — Benj96

Many have done so yes, from Plato to Hitler to Martin Luther King.

Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!" — Benj96

Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power.

You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question:

s that not possible, for God to have an existent? — Benj96

Exactly what i said earlier! You're right Universeness. — Benj96

Yep, we agree on that one!

. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent. — universeness

It is a prophet indeed. You're quite right. Because for actual god to exist as a person it would require the entire universe to condense into a singular person, what external reality then would such a person exist in? The universe as a system cannot be the whole unit and also be within itself.

But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe).

Through that deep understanding, they would inherit the highest degree of empathy and patience for others who don't understand their own relationship to the universe as it actually is, and would naturally go about illuminating that knowledge in them so they can appreciate in full their true relationship to reality, as he/she does.

As I said they would be the fourth condition of a god worth pursuing - the benevolent aspect of the entire system. The part that can't imbue a sense of connectedness and belonging.

A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. — universeness

Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality.

Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power — universeness

Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy.

But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe). — Benj96

For me, a prophet is just a human who is trying to dupe others that god speaks through him/her.
It's an old ruse, first used to establish the divine right of kings to rule over the masses. A prophet is the biggest bullshitter there is. Especially a political prophet.

But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe). — Benj96

Are you going to admit you are a panpsychist Mr Benj or am I totally off the mark?

Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality. — Benj96

Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are?

Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy. — Benj96

You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question:
s that not possible, for God to have an existent? — universeness

Well, we worship noble people and the noble acts they do. And we condone the most intense demonstrations of evil that have existed amongst us. (Both may know the truth - god/reality)
The difference is what they choose to do with it.

If you have the entire truth but withold it entirely from others you have no choice other than to lie - the opposite of truth. You can be utterly convincing, manipulative and appear as a noble person but you intentions (to withold the truth but use its power, to take no responsibility) is an evil act. I believe this is why Hitler came to power. Anyone who understands how the mind works can either empathise with it and inform it (Martin Luther king, ghandi, jfk, Joan of arc, all the revered martyrs) or manipulate it (Hitler, perhaps Putin nowadays).

Those who don't know the truth of things are vulnerable. Children don't know much at all and are therfore vulnerable to the teachings (good or bad) of those that know the truth. Right? So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation.

Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are? — universeness

Well I believe you are more in touch with reason and ethics than many others. As you showed me you were. Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past.

So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation. — Benj96

Yep its akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want.

Yep is akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want. — universeness

Precisely. They are much the same.
I think the borders of self are created by our beliefs, not definitive and discrete. So if we want to maximise our self awareness, if we want to extend those borders to the maximum, we are ever increasingly responsible for others and thus their suffering or happiness.

If on the other hand, we minimise our borders to just our body. Reduce it to simply me, then all we have to consider is "what's in it for me". A selfish stance.

The only difference between "them" and "I" (boundary of self) is to what degree I am prepared to see likeness, to believe I am the same as others, to empathise and thus take on board their suffering and delight as if it were me own.

Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past. — Benj96

I can only place such a question into the same file as the one that holds questions such as. How close will we get to KNOWING the actual speed of light in a vacuum with complete accuracy? Which piece of info, if known by the human race, would mean a human could completely transcend human existence and 'become' or 'ascend, ' to ........... (to be filled in when we know what should go here :naughty: )
'Ultimate' is another one of those 'concept' words. I think we are still a lot closer to the early hominid species that we are to the omnis Mr Benj.

I see what you mean. I think irrationality must exist in commune with the rational. For without eachother neither would exist. Irrational numbers for example will never be complete as they are endless and not repetitive (not predictable). They can thus never fully be known.

And on the other hand the rational and predictable can be known and thus is discrete.

So here we have two opposing forces, one that is erratic, changeable, unpredictable, inaccurate, and one that follows a rule, is clear and known and finite/discrete.

Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof, between life (ordered systems) and death (dissolution into the chaos).

Your typings remind me again of a dilemma dramatised in an episode of Babylon 5.
A student 'warrior of light' (a Minbari Ranger) is having a crisis about what he thinks is worth dying for.
His mentor asks him;
'If I tasked you to climb to the top of a mountain to retrieve a rare flower that grew only there, and I told you that you would be successful, but you would die, would you do it?'
'No' was the reply.
When asked why? The student said, 'because it would be a futile way to lose my life.'
The mentor said, 'well if I now revealed to you that this flower is the worshipped symbol of a subjugated people and the sight of this flower will inspire them to revolt against their oppressors and free millions of them from abject slavery and horrific suffering, would you do it then?'
'Yes' was the humble response.
We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at.