Fair enough, I suppose
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 699
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 699
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
You're missing the joke. One of the chief conservative complaints about immigrants is that "they don't assimilate into american society".
Yeah, that sounds like someone seriously in need of mental healthcare. I guess I just haven't seen all of these crazies you claim make up the entirety of the group. I honestly do believe that anyone who is still pro-natalist is either not thinking very clearly, or is likely to be part of the groups making it immoral to have a child, because it seems like a very simple logical conclusion. I just believe that such arguments are clearly superior to anything pro-natalists have offered, and so all that is necessary is to talk to people. Just put off having kids for a few years until you know whether irresponsibly risking creating a life of misery is right for you!
I very clearly stated "as someone who understands, if not necessarily openly espouses, anti-natalist ideology". I am suggesting that I, personally, think that my original 7th premise is becoming closer and closer to logical truth. I believe, as something close to an anti-natalist, that everyone needs to do their own cost-benefit analysis to determine whether they can accept the culpability of deciding to bring an unconsenting entity into the horrific world in which we currently live. So, just because I don't believe in forcibly converting everyone to the cause, doesn't mean I don't believe in it, just like not every Christian is an evangelical. Anyone who believes that there is a moral imperative to forcibly stop others from having children is clearly fundamentally misunderstanding the reasons why anti-natalist principles are so attractive (much like how evangelicals display a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theology)
I always appreciate when addlepated bumblefucks out themselves like this. Thank you for your transparency. It has saved us all a lot of time.
What's the town? You can't just promise a bounty of food and not name-drop it.
That's all fine and well as an internal idea why you don't want to have kids, but when anti-natalism became a "thing" that started attracting like-minds it became another group of insane people online pushing their anti-society ideals
And lastly, mostly, the idea quickly attracts people who just hate children and that's something we need to fight with all our might as a species.
You said that anti-natalists dislike when their beliefs are challenged, but the first thing you do is concede that point and start talking about your personal perspective on the history of anti-natalism. I'm trying to present as close as you can get to a logically-valid anti-natalist argument, but it seems like your personal experience with people you perceive to be anti-natalists has tainted your ability to engage with that perspective. Claiming that an idea attracts crazy people is just an anecdotal ad hominem, not an actual issue with the idea. If you want to talk about why you perceive it to attract crazy, antisocial child-haters, then first establish that that is the case and suggest what it is about the idea which makes such an attraction dangerous. Fascism isn't bad because the worst people rally around it. The worst people rally around it because of the things which make it bad, such as the ease with which those in power in a fascist state can exploit the weak for personal gain.
It appears, to me (though it is ambiguous, so let me know if I'm off-base), that you believe that the biggest danger of anti-natalism is in the potential of population decline. If a significant portion of the population agreed with an anti-natalist argument, such that they actually did believe it was morally irresponsible to have a child, I contend that the problem which must be solved is not their exposure to anti-natalism, but the things which caused it to be a convincing argument, namely the fact that the future of a child born into this world is a deeply risky bet, due to the reasons I've listed and more. I don't think that people taking a rational cost-benefit analysis of a situation is a problem. The problem would be the situation.
In fact, it seems like (again an implication, so correct me if I'm wrong) you are concerned that an anti-natalist would try to forcibly prevent people from having children, but such an action would increase the suffering of those alive, and the actor would be morally culpable for such an act. As such, if you are, instead, suggesting that anti-natalists believe in forced sterilisation or otherwise, then I think that it might not be the anti-natalists projecting their own problems onto the world.
All that aside, I still think it's a narrow perspective, because unless you know something I don't, we don't know if there's an alternative to existing and experiencing things, I mean... you're going to die, and you will be dead forever. If you're a teacher you should know the basic ideas about the universe and how everything appears to be probabilistic in nature. Eventually, after all the stars die and a number of years pass that make time meaningless, it will eventually all happen again. In some form or another. The universe will always be experiencing itself, not having kids now just means that conscious experience is going to express somewhere else, some distant configuration. It happened once already, and few things in nature are singular.
As an earth and space science teacher, why yes, I DO know some things about the cosmos. For instance, I know that the "big bounce" theory (everything repeating) is only one of many potential interpretations for the future of our universe, and is by no means the most popular among astrophysicists, since it appears inconsistent with a universe in apparently-accelerating expansion. Far more likely is heat death or the big rip, which would make all effort to come before existentially meaningless, unless some method of information transfer outside of our universe or beyond our current understanding were to be achieved. It's a good thing that none of us will be around to experience those eventualities. If you'd like to chat about existential nihilism, absurdism, or other concerns, I'm happy to do so, but I don't perceive them to be particularly germane to the argument at hand, unless you're trying to use a nihilistic argument to tear apart a fairly common position among nihilists. Utilitarianism itself is, ultimately, a response to the lack of meaning in the cosmos, and is an attempt to ascribe meaning by our own, subjective definition, so of course it's human-biased, but it can be applied evenly, even to animals, which seems to be a primary concern for you.
and if we're going to go out quietly into the night, we should do it with the least amount of harm, and I would rather we put that energy into taking better care of the people we already have.
That is... Exactly my point. Are you sure you are disagreeing with me? We need to be actively taking better care of the world, so that no one need feel afraid of bringing a life into this world, only for it to experience unspeakable suffering.
Do you know for sure if you're actually reducing suffering? Or just reducing your own guilt? For all we know, this is as good is as it gets.
Such a thing is fundamentally unknowable, but our definition of suffering is fairly consistent, and of course It's all about personal moral culpability, because that's the whole idea of morality. If you're going to take so many nihilistic and moral relativist stances, I don't see why you're so concerned with population collapse or animal welfare.
We don't know if the alternative to this is better, odds are it isn't, we don't know if you are actually deciding if you're bringing in a new life or only changing the shape of your own conscious experience in this universe. We don't even know if you have a choice at all, and are not just post-hoc rationalizing decisions you've already made.
While it is fair to attack the postulates of an argument, this is not, in my opinion, a particularly compelling argument. Sure, I assume that not creating a life does no harm, but to say "ooh, free will might be an illusion" doesn't actually negate my point, because, at worst, this means that it doesn't matter whether you're anti-natalist.
[a] crustacean that gets cronched by some predator or a primate who suffers horribly and dies after her family is murdered by another tribe.
My argument does not apply to animals in a state of nature, as those animals are not reasonably expected to have responsibility (If I were to learn that a species of animal did, in fact, have sufficient mental capacity to understand existential philosophy, then I would probably be having this conversation with a dolphin, rather than a lemming). Humans are the active cause of the current mass-extinction event, and we have the wherewithal to potentially stop it. That is, from my perspective, a moral imperative. Humans are the cause of a great deal of suffering, both human and among other animals, and one of my precepts claims that suffering can have a net-negative effect on the value of life. Another precept enjoins us to act, as the failure to act constitutes negligence. Do i believe that we must all stop procreating? no. Do i believe that there are cases in which it is actively irresponsible and negligent to bring a child into the world? Absolutely, yes. Do I think that I have a moral responsibility to stop people from fucking? No I do not. Do i believe that everyone must be educated on the responsibilities, risks, costs and benefits of parenthood, so they can be informed when they consent to engage in procreation? Yes. Do I think I have a moral responsibility to make the world a better place for the inevitable products of the aforementioned fucking? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY
Fair enough. I only interact with Lemmy, nebula and dropout, so I don't really see that side of things (the few YouTube things I can't get on nebula are science-related, so they're fairly unlikely to join the Turd Reich)
Yeah, if you're looking to get into Tchaikovsky, I'd recommend either Children of Time (if you like sci-fi) or The City of Last Chances (if you like fantasy). His work is always based in his experience as a zoologist, so his environments and animals are second-to-none (even the series of which City of Last Chances is a part contains well-considered biology whenever "monsters" from "the grove" are described)
I'm confused by this. The only people I've read complaining about the "strongly worded letter" tendencies have been criticising the us democratic party for its dereliction of duty and utterly feckless disregard of their constitutional oaths in the face of this fascist xenocidal administration. Where are you seeing the imprecations against Europe?
EDIT: You know what, I just read the rest of the thread OP's comments, and I rescind my point. They spew enough anti-european angst to fill a couple of comment sections.
You should read "Vaster than Empires, and More Slow" by Ursula K Leguin, which is basically this. Also "Shroud", and "Alien Clay" by Adrian Tchaikovsky have somewhat related ideas, but are full-blown examinations of the concepts of utterly alien intelligence. Honestly, you'd probably like most of Tchaikovsky's work. He does a lot with "alternative manifestations of sapience".
That's fair, and I can't speak for others, but at the very least, it's a generalisation which I believe is unwarranted. I can simultaneously believe that it is morally questionable to choose to have a child, but also that a child, once born, places upon all members of society a moral duty of care in its upbringing, not only for harm reduction, but to work toward the betterment of society writ-large, so that we can potentially make the future act of procreation less morally concerning.
As someone who understands, if not necessarily openly espouses, anti-natalist ideology, I can give a bit of elucidation from my perspective of the philosophy of utilitarianism, which I am happy to debate. It would be nice to be proven wrong here.
It comes down, in my opinion and understanding, to the following argument:
- an entity is inherently unable to consent to its own creation. [A postulate]
- suffering has a net-negative effect on the (perceived or actual) value of existence [precept of utilitarianism]
- suffering knowingly enacted against any entity which cannot give informed consent is eqquivalent to the suffering of an entity which is actively not consenting [by which argument paedophilia is a crime]
- The potential suffering inherent in life is foreseeable, as is the potential of a human life to harm the lives of others. [The basis of the concept of negligence]
- An entity that is not created does not harm or cause others to suffer, nor does it experience harm or suffering [postulate]
From propositions 1 through 4:
- You are personally, morally responsible for the life which you create, both its actions and its experiences, as all of its experiences and actions are exclusively contingent on the act of its creation. It is from this moral duty that parental responsibility derives.
- there is a foreseeable possibility that the entity being created could endure enough suffering (or be the cause of same) to make the value of their life net-negative
From propositions 5 and 6, and the various observations one might make of the world (from climate change, to the renewed rise of fascism and the far-right, and a myriad of other "natural shocks which flesh is heir to"), they suggest:
- On cost-benefit analysis, the expected value of a new life which I might create is net-negative.
From which:
- it would be irresponsible (read: negligent) to procreate.
That is the basis. If you can prove each of those propositions, then from a utilitarian perspective, I think anti-natalism follows. I am personally convinced up to proposition 6, and I am personally waiting until I no longer feel that 7 has a chance of being valid before I have children. There are plenty of ways you can argue against the propositions, but as they stand, there is no indication of a moral duty to end already-extant life or to engage in mass-sterilisation of animals. There are certainly people who try to come at it from a nihilistic perspective, and it's MUCH easier to argue pretty much anything from nihilism than from utilitarianism, but I, being primarily utilitarian, hold with the above.
I also think that the person saying "anti-natalists think children are awful to be around" is presenting a ridiculous strawman. I'm a public school teacher, and I love being around kids. The wonder with which they view the cosmos is forever inspiring to me, but many of my students have experienced truly awful things. I believe my moral duty involves doing everything I can to minimize the suffering of entities that exist. I think that, once a child has been created, you now have a moral duty to make that child's life as free from suffering and as fulfilling and rich as possible (without imposing suffering on others, of course)
Iroh is not a pacifist. He is just very selective about the use of deadly force.
Iroh tries to teach zuko how to kill his enemies unflinchingly with "cold-blooded" lightning, and when that fails, teaches zuko to redirect lightning, which he knows is — and makes clear to be —explicitly deadly force, "to turn your enemy's energy against them". He acknowledges that, if he were to defeat Ozai, it would be "brother killing a brother", because there was no realistic world in which Ozai could be contained without leading to his death. He accepts that his granddaughter "is crazy and needs to go down".
When he chooses to take back Ba Sing Se, does he go in covertly and retake the puppet state from the occupying troops by forcing a surrender or a diplomatic solution? No, his opening move is to generate the largest ball of fire possible, then hurl it at the titanic wall, which not only does the camera show us has many people behind it, but which Iroh is ready to obliterate, soldiers and all, sight unseen. He does what must be done. Violence is his last resort, but he clearly has no moral compunction against using violence against the violent. Deadly force is met with a redirecting blow, carrying that same energy or more. In the first season, when he believes the fate of the world hangs in the balance, he threatens and uses deadly force "tenfold" that which is exacted upon the moon spirit. There is nowhere in the show that Iroh says that death is never the solution. The only reason we don't see the deaths of the many soldiers occupying Ba Sing Se at Iroh's hands (as well as all of the other times he has caused soldiers to be buried under their own boulders, breathed fire into their faces, or otherwise used violent infernos to defeat enemies) is that it was depicted in a kids' show. The only person in the series who maintains that deadly force is never the answer is Aang. Aang only manages it in the finale by Deus Ex Machina because he's the chosen one (and the protagonist of a kids' show).
He wouldn't word it that way, and he wouldn't suggest that killing is universally the best way to go about it, but this is not the least likely thing that could come out of his mouth, as another commenter pointed out "Azula is crazy, and needs to go down". Even as he turned down the team's request to defeat Ozai, he made it clear that it could only end in death, "brother killing brother". He was under no illusion that capturing Ozai was ever an option.
Do you think that the white lotus took back Ba Sing Se without killing anyone with those 100-foot-tall walls of fire? No, you don't expel an occupying force by just cutting the tips off of some spears. Avatar shows us the least-bloody parts of the recapture, but do not mistake Iroh's depiction in a kids' series for pacifism. Iroh is very clear, vocally, that violence is necessary in some cases. He teaches zuko to redirect lightning to send it back at the person who launched it, as he says "to use your opponent's energy against them". He prefers nonlethal methods, but that doesn't mean he refuses to employ deadly force. He and his friends use heavy fire against enemy metal tanks, which would boil alive the soldiers inside. They use rocks to stop up the holes through which benders were actively shooting fire, which would rebound and fill the tank with that same conflagration. Those tanks get shot up hundreds of feet in the air and have hard landings on top of one another, which would not only concuss anyone inside to death, but would crush all of the tanks on the bottom. Iroh literally starts the liberation of Ba Sing Se with a fire blast large enough to completely obliterate the titanic wall, as well as everyone previously depicted positioned directly behind it, in an instant. He doesn't know how many soldiers lie behind that wall. He just destroys it, sight-unseen.
Iroh is not a pacifist, he is just very selective in his use of deadly force.
<The monkey's paw curls another finger down>
"Hey guys! This lead acetate is really sweet! Let's make candy out of it!"
They cut off option d, which is "tell your lab supervisor immediately"
Are you suggesting that these trees are likely to be fissile?
politics @lemmy.world Lest We Forget the Horrors: An Unending Catalog of Trump’s Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes
Science Memes @mander.xyz Since we're doing magic eyes now...
politics @lemmy.world Lest We Forget The Horrors: An Unending Catalog of Trump's Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions & Crimes
Isn't the idea of a Boltzmann Brain not that it poofs out of existence, but that there is no way to prove that you are not a Boltzmann Brain, and all of your perceived experiences could be confabulation? In such a scenario the Brain needn't poof out of existence; merely continuing to exist for but a moment would belie the true nature of their consciousness, as the brain quickly suffocates and dies, losing its contents.