zazen

Not sure if you were also asking whether anti-realist views can exist within an idealist world? In which case yes, but belief being able to exist is different from it being true. Subjective anti-natalist views can exist within existence but that doesn’t make their universal claims about existence true. Just like someone can believe in Santa, without it being true. As for idealism (non-materialist worldview) and anti-natalism being incompatible or not - they just don’t resonate with each other at the ontological level of how they view existence. Anti-natalism assumes creation as causation - that you can “bring a being into existence” who previously wasn’t. That idea only makes sense in materialism, where matter precedes consciousness. But in idealism, consciousness is fundamental and eternal. No one “creates” a conscious being - consciousness already is and simply manifests through different forms. There’s no non-being to violate or new entity to “impose” existence upon. So the antinatalist’s moral claim - “it’s wrong to force life into being” - loses its metaphysical ground. From idealisms pov it’s like saying the ocean is morally wrong for making waves That’s why I said it’s not about their worldview being bad as much as it is about being untrue - unless seen from a purely materialist paradigm. But it doesn’t reflect how reality operates in an idealist paradigm. Their ethics depend on the metaphysics of materialism - which see’s a world of separate agents manufacturing life as if in a factory. Once the premise changes, the conclusion evaporates with it. In other words: the idealist paradigm (that conciousness is primary) is at odds with the materialist paradigm on which anti-natalism depends. The foundational premise from which all assumptions are made is materialist. If the paradigm is widened to include a spiritual metaphysics then the old one is no longer coherent. The premise changes, and along with it the assumptions and the conclusions. The conclusion of the material paradigm is that life is a non-consensually imposed net negative on a new life - therefore anti-natalism makes the correct conclusion that life is best not perpetuated.

I agree - it's fine as a personal intuition and choice they make, but where I challenge it on is that they take a subjective moral intuition and turn it into a universal claim about reality. They believe their subjective anti-realist view is actually a objective view of reality - by taking something which is particular, relative, and subjective and making it objective, absolute, and universal. The claim isn't that ''giving birth for me is wrong'' - its that ''giving birth itself is wrong''. It's the same error dogmatic religious people make - even if they don't impose their views on others, from within their moral paradigm they view others as sinning because their actions aren't in line with their universal truth and moral law. It's in the name itself - anti-natalist (against, birth) - that's a moral position against the act of birth itself, claimed as a universal wrong. So it's not just a personal preference based on case by case circumstance that may be relatively true for a certain individual - its a philosophy believing it describes a absolute truth about existence. Yeah - no doubt even non-materialists care about suffering, they just contextualize it differently. For the materialist, suffering is unredeemable except by its elimination. The moral logic is that if life produces suffering, the ethical ideal is to stop life. They treat suffering as ultimate because there’s nothing beyond it - no larger field (meta-physic/physical) in which pain and joy have meaning or can be redeemed by higher goods beyond measure like love, awareness, beauty etc. It makes sense why the logical endpoint of the materialist paradigm would lead to minimizing ''potential'' lives because life is (mainly) suffering, so fewer beings = less suffering. Anti-natalism emerges from that, as I mentioned - they do have coherence within the materialist paradigm. Non-materialists can still care about suffering and choose to not give birth - but it won't be for the same reasons ie based upon consent violation or from the view that life is suffering and inherently bad - a universal claim and verdict of existence. One can still view the value of life, the inherent beauty and goodness - whilst still deciding not to procreate based upon the relative truth that their circumstances would most likely cause more suffering for the child than not - including for the parent themselves. It's simply a assessment on your circumstances not being viable - not a verdict that life itself is a cosmic mistake. Note also how they usually talk of suffering and not just pain. Suffering is the experience of pain, experience implies someone who experiences ( a sufferer ), which implies a consciousness that suffers - which undermines the materialist paradigm itself. A moral intuition and value judgment of suffering being a bad that should be minimised (instead of also contextualised) comes from a consciousness being there in the first place. The anti-natalists own capacity to contemplate existence, make moral judgments or value life enough to want to prevent suffering and philosophize about it - point to something beyond just the material. Even for spiritual anti-natalists (who are opposed to natalism yet still believe in the spiritual) - they simply haven't gone full circle to the point of understanding a metaphysics (spiritual reality) within which suffering can be redeemed by states that are themselves spiritual and beyond any material measure. The issue is less of their worldview being bad or good and more about it being untrue. It essentially boils down to a materialist vs anti-materialist debate because its from that premises that follows all the assumptions and views being made. That's the foundation. Doesn't actualized.org and Leo etc already cover how the materialist worldview is untrue? Like that thread where someone shared Bernardo Kastrup and Alex O'Connor discussing materialism and idealism on the philosophy sub-forum. Eternity can't be imposed on that which is already eternal - consciousness. This is why each paradigm approaches this so differently. Without a spiritual lens, anti-natalisms logic is hard to refute, because it’s made inside a materialist worldview where we should minimize suffering. Trying to debate that from their paradigm is already a loss because we've conceded to their paradigm and all the assumptions that follow it (which are then coherent) - instead of debating the paradigm itself. If we include a metaphysical dimension - soul, evolution of consciousness, divine play etc - the logic dissolves. If life is the universe experiencing itself, then birth isn't a imposition but a participation. Deciding not to participate is a choice - but it isn't a condemnation of life itself being bad. It can be bad from a relative sense, but not a absolute sense from which we then make existential universal claims about life. Anti-natalists mistake suffering in life, for the the nature of life. From a materialist view it makes sense that life is imposed upon a being because life looks like a product made in a assembly line - two physical meat suits rubbing each other and bang (big or small lol) - a new consciousness appears that needs to suffer a life it didn't consent to. It makes sense if the universe is a dead machine (mechanistic) and that consciousness is a by product / side effect of biology and matter rather than its source. But from a metaphysical view there only ever is Consciousness or a Being that is eternal, only shifting in form. In that paradigm we aren't condemning a life to exist and suffer forever because it already was existing - just in different form- as the formless. From that paradigm its not a question of a new being, being created from thin air - Being already is the case, existence already is the case and is eternal - it isn't imposed but only unfolds. The ocean and wave metaphor (Alan Watts) is useful: the ocean doesn’t ask the wave if it wants to exist, the wave is the ocean expressing itself and was never separate to begin with. Violation can still happen between forms (waves), but never to Being (ocean) itself. At a metaphysical level - Being can't be violated, because nothing stands outside it to harm or destroy it. The ocean isn't damaged by one wave smashing another. Ethical dynamics (consent, violations etc) emerge in the relative sense within the domain of forms - between waves, not in the absolute sense of violating Being itself. When the wave rises, it doesn’t violate anything - it just fulfills what it already is, the impulse of the ocean / life / Being. The burden of proof is on the antinatalists to show that the inherent impulse of life is not to be and that life is solely material. Everything says otherwise - including the antinatalists themselves who are standing as a being - living, breathing and not ceasing to be themselves. The impulse of life is to be and Being wants to be. That's why most people oppose the notion of anti-natalism that makes universal claims about life as a net negative of little to no value. On some level most people feel it to be off. Anti-natalism is moral intuition that’s right but incompletely applied to life because its stripped of a larger metaphysical context within which to make sense of suffering. Whether people can articulate it or not - the same thing in people that responds to art, love and beauty is the same thing that rejects anti-natalisms universal claims about life being net negative. Anti-natalists themselves are living proof of the thing they condemn. They are a life passionately arguing that life shouldn't continue to exist through natalism - while demonstrating through that very passion that life finds meaning, purpose, and value in its own expression.

Related:

Going further into this. The consent argument can logically be dismantled. But the argument for life having more suffering and pain than pleasure is trickier. We can weigh things up to conclude (based upon conditions) that certain lives will suffer more than they will experience pleasure. Which is why I said the coherence is there “if coming at it from a purely materialist view”. But the deeper experiences of life aren’t quantifiable, but are instead qualitative and transcendent - which includes them transcending the measurement of the balance sheet on which we are trying to weight up life as a net negative or positive. Love, meaning, beauty and presence transcend the entire calculus and binary of pain / pleasure - they include yet transcend them. Like a mother going through motherhood with sleepless nights and all it entails - there’s pain and discomfort, but immense meaning and love at the same time that transcends it all. Quality is denser than quantity - we can quantitatively count the same number of gold and silver coins - yet the gold coins weigh more than the silver. Quantity measures the surface, is horizontal. Quality is of depth, vertical. The anti-natalist is applying a mathematical logic to a realm that is fundamentally alogical. The fact that those transcendent states are alogical makes them even harder to logically discuss and convince an anti-natalist of them - or of the asymmetrical value in them against the more measurable moments of suffering. It’s basically the calculator vs the poet - asking someone to weight the soul on a scale built for bricks. The cold calculus of suffering is logically coherent but existentially hollow - because it fails to account for the very things that make life worth living, even despite the calculator showing we suffer more on paper. It’s almost impossible to logically convey the value of that which is beyond logic - but that is of value that trumps logic altogether. That is the domain of the master and the mystics - who use mechanisms to bring us to an experience of life, that shows us life definitely isn’t just mechanistic. That it isn’t simply physical matter, but that a meta-physical reality exists. I can never point directly to the value of life, or logically explain it. That’s where art, music, poetry step in - or the experience of love, beauty and presence. Love, presence and meaning don’t erase suffering, pain or loss but instead redeem them. Anti-natalists are the accountants of existence using a sterile weighing scale. The lovers of life or even those who have experienced love just once - know life transcends the scale altogether. Logic coldly asks why? Love asks why not? “Metaphysical syllables riddled by the invisible”

@zurew Separate responsibility from consent. We can do our best to create good conditions for current and future life on earth - without any violation of consent for that future life occurring - which is an impossibility to begin with. We can be responsible for creating conditions, but can’t be guilty for violating consent of a being or subject that doesn’t yet exist. Otherwise how are you making all your decisions day to day - which are violating trillions of future lives consents? Was your own birth a violation of consent? Or just morally irresponsible because you’ll suffer and die one day? If it’s a violation of consent, who violated it? If it’s irresponsibility - then you’re admitting the question depends on conditions, not a universal moral law which anti-natalists depends on. Anti-natalism needs the “consent violation” framing to maintain their universal ethic of non-consensual birth being bad, thus procreation itself being bad. Without it, they’re just saying “be a good parent if you have kids” which isn’t a revolutionary position - it’s common sense and just being responsible. If someone finds life to be hard, and that them having kids would compound that suffering and be passed onto the kids - then don’t have them. That’s responsible and fair - but it isn’t about violating consent. These are distinct from each other. Once the consent argument flops the next one is that life itself is more bad than good. This is where anti-natalism can actually have some coherence - if one comes at it from a purely materialist view - hence the thread is even called “a solution for ending materialist human suffering”. But most humans intuit the metaphysical (soul) beyond just the physical (material) - which is why most people don’t overreact to their experience of suffering with nihilistic philosophies and a negative universal claims about life itself. Something in us wants to live, despite suffering and outside of just biology -something beyond matter, that seems to matter enough to enough people to keep on living. People are still out there creating and risking the heartbreak of love, and contextualizing the inevitability of death in various ways to deal with it. There’s a metaphysical pulse running through the physical - that if we don’t numb ourselves to and sever ourselves from - help us have a appropriate relationship to suffering. Often it makes life even more beautiful. I shared the part I used for AI and said it’s from Chat GPT. Go back to my older posts or topics before AI was even a thing to see that I don’t just write and explore things in such a shallow manner, or that I’m incapable of depth without AI. Feel free to use AI yourself and bring clarity to the subject.

You haven’t engaged any of the points but instead moved the goalpost because I keep playing whack a mole by shutting down your points. You haven’t even responded to Basman making the same point about consent and responsibility being distinct. Anti-natalism can’t survive on its own logic, because it keeps borrowing the language of life to argue against life. They talk about ethics while denying the subject that makes ethics possible, talk about consent while erasing the being that can consent, and talk about compassion while annihilating the context where compassion has meaning. It’s the terminal stage of a disenchanted, disillusioned and metaphysically displaced culture. How sad. I don’t even say this as a dig - I am Western and in the West myself. You still haven’t answered how you live day to day life and make decisions - haven’t you made multiple consent violations of future non existent people before breakfast this morning? Your logic is only for the prophets who can forsee the future and teleport in some multi-verse to seek consent of the non-existent. Maybe you are a prophet and ahead of us - maybe when we’re all prophets at stage turquoise we’ll take up this logic and incorporate it into our own laws. If this logic was sound, coherent and most of all applicable - we’d see it codified into law and practiced. From Chat GPT: Zurew’s logic doesn’t appear anywhere in real-world legal or medical ethics, because it’s philosophically incoherent and legally unusable. Let’s break that down with examples: ⚖️ 1. Criminal Law (Rape and Consent) In criminal law, consent is strictly present and relational — between existing persons capable of giving or denying it. Example: In a rape case, if a victim is unconscious, the act is considered non-consensual because the person exists and has rights that persist during unconsciousness. However, no court recognizes “future consent violations.” You can’t be charged with “violating the consent of a person who doesn’t exist yet.” That’s why paying someone to commit a rape is punished under conspiracy or solicitation, not as “violating the future victim’s consent.” The law distinguishes between intent and violation — exactly what Zurew blurs. 🏥 2. Medical Ethics Medical ethics operates on informed consent, again requiring an existing, identifiable patient who can understand and agree. Example: Performing a medical procedure on an unconscious patient is only ethical if prior consent was given (e.g. a DNR form) or if the situation is life-threatening and consent is presumed. No medical system treats a future person as a moral subject whose consent can be violated. That’s why doctors don’t need “consent from future generations” to perform life-saving research — they’re judged by current professional duty, not speculative future consent. So in both criminal and medical ethics, Zurew’s logic fails completely. It doesn’t map onto any framework because consent presupposes subjecthood, and subjecthood presupposes existence. If his logic were real, you’d have absurd results like: Doctors being guilty of “violating the consent of future patients” by discovering antibiotics. Parents being guilty of “pre-consensual harm” for conceiving children. That’s why no legal or medical code uses it — it’s philosophically fanciful and legally unusable.” I’m only this cheeky and blunt because you called my comment stupid, weird and claimed me to be butt hurt. Next time you’ll think twice about being naughty and rude. Naughty zurew.

“Whether you call it consent violation or moral responsibility doesn’t matter” - of course it matters. The rhetorical position of antinatalism rests on framing procreation as a consent violation. That’s what elevates a personal choice into a moral emergency and totalizing ethic. Strip away the consent language and what are we left with? “You’re subjecting someone to experiences including negative ones and mortality” Yeah - that’s called existence lol you’ve discovered the human condition. If that’s framed as consent violation then suddenly we’re not just describing reality - but making parenthood analogous to assault. We’re weaponizing liberal individualist frameworks (autonomy, consent) and extending them into metaphysical absurdity (demanding consent from the non-existent). Your collapsing the distinction to maintain your narrative - which depends on treating potential people as right bearing individuals whose consent can be violated. @Basman Related to your comment and to Zurew bringing up how I tie in an unrelated topic when it’s very much is related. These stage green philosophies aren’t errors due to compassion or their original intent that is sincere and valid - it’s that they’re taking what are situational individual choices and universalizing them into a cosmic ethic. Why can’t lifestyle choices remain as such? Why do they need to become moral crusades and isms? The wider point about this phenemona emerging in the West is that these moral overextensions keep emerging in the context of a culture trying to re-soul itself through moral absolutism - because for a long time it submerged itself in rational scientific materialism that metaphysically unmoored it. They are symptoms of what happens when you have a correct moral intuition (suffering is bad) but no metaphysical container for it (no understanding of suffering’s role in growth, or a transcendent meaning that contextualizes earthly pain, or spiritual framework that grounds existence as fundamentally good despite its difficulties). So that moral impulse - which in a traditional framework would be tempered by wisdom, cosmology or initiation into life - instead becomes absolute. It eats itself. “Suffering is bad” becomes “therefore existence is bad” becomes “therefore reproduction is unethical.” This is the West’s particular pathology: we rejected a transcendent metaphysics, kept the moral sensitivity, and now that sensitivity has nowhere to go but into increasingly totalizing, life negating philosophies that we call progress. Spiral Dynamics assumes a linear, universal trajectory of development that’s actually Western centric in both its aesthetic and milestones. It interprets progress through the lens of the Western psyche: material mastery (Orange), then moral overreach and empathy (Green), then synthesis of the tensions and contradictions in the below stages (Yellow). Other cultures with a spiritual or metaphysical anchor already resolved these tensions without collapsing into nihilism. Spiral Dynamics can’t see that because it reads history through a Western teleology and developmental arc, where everyone else looks like a “lower stage” for not following. It universalizes the Western developmental arc - as if that trajectory is the natural path for all humans. Every other culture is measured against this Western timeline and implicitly cast as “behind in development” rather than “differently developed”. The West lost its metaphysical grounding and then tried to reconstruct it through psychology - then mistake its own rediscovery of balance as “the next stage of evolution.” It’s civilizational amnesia posturing as progress. As if these colour coded values never existed before and only “came online” in Ken Wilber’s terms - in recent history. How does stage green or yellow values only come online recently - as if they never existed before lol. It’s called spiral dynamics yet approached as if it’s ladder dynamics in some linear manner. Concern for the environment and marginalized is a recent evolution? Tell that to Jains who’ve been practicing radical non-harm for 2,500 years, or indigenous cultures with sophisticated ecological wisdom embedded in their cosmologies, or mystics who experienced universal divine love. Tell that to every traditional culture that understood humans as embedded in - not separate from - the web of life. Apparently none of that counts because it was wrapped in “mythic” or “magic” worldviews. It only becomes a real developmental stage when white Western baby boomers discovered empathy after dropping acid lol. The model literally takes Western culture’s temporary pathological detour through mechanistic rationalism and calls it a necessary path of evolution for the entire globe. It treats these values as novelties that “emerged” rather than a recovery from lost and found. I’m not saying spiral dynamics is junk - just that “the map is not the territory” - and this map doesn’t map onto the territory of reality so cleanly and neatly in the way we think it does.

No it isnt. So in a hypothetical where there is no chance of any suffering at all and there is guaranteed pure bliss , you are telling me that these people would still be against having children? @zurew Didn’t you already discuss how anti-natalism isn’t about consent with somethingfunny? If you reject the anti-natalist view of “non-consent to being born” because “you can’t ask a non-being”, yet insist you can violate the consent of a non-being that doesn’t yet exist in the future - that’s self-refuting. On your rape example - an unconscious person still exists as a subject with bodily autonomy - they have a continuing identity and rights that persist through unconsciousness. Even a corpse has rights despite no capacity for consent because ethics is relational - it arises from continuity between beings who exist or have existed. The dead still exist in relation - through memory and continuity. The non-existent exist in abstraction -without relation or continuity. Assaulting someone in a coma is still rape - because consent is temporarily inaccessible, not ontologically impossible. Latent rights belong to existing subjects whose capacity to exercise them is currently dormant - their rights persist because their being and subject hood persists. Potential rights, on the other hand, refer to non-existent or not-yet-subject entities - possible persons. You can’t wrong a non-subject or one who hasn’t existed as one - only prepare conditions that may later affect one ie be irresponsible but not “violate” consent when no subject exists to grant it or not. A living subject has intrinsic rights (active). A dead person has derivative rights (symbolic/relational). A non-existent has no rights, because they’ve never entered relation or continuity. On your latest example - you’re mixing up intent and violation. Just because one act leads to another doesn’t mean they’re the same act or carry the same kind of guilt. Paying someone to commit rape is wrong for the intent - the rape itself is wrong for violating consent when it happens. Determinism doesn’t erase that difference - it explains how one led to the other. Mixing up cause and morality is like blaming gravity for murder because it pulled the bullet down. Honest question - how do you live day to day by your logic? Every meal, car ride or consumer choice would be a “violation of future consent” from someone not yet born but guaranteed to exist. You’d need prophetic knowledge of every potential consequence before acting. Also - you think our brains grew this large because we ate grass and nuts and not all the other nutrients derived from non-vegan sources?

I already wrote “Someone who is unconscious still exists as a subject with right to bodily autonomy. Their capacity for consent exists even when they’re not currently exercising it - and that anyone overriding it makes it unethical to begin with.” I also covered how moral responsibility still applies to actions that foreseeably affect a future subject. You’re responsible for what those cells will become, but you can’t “violate consent” of what doesn’t yet exist just as Basman is pointing out to you also. Your mistaking the intention to cause harm for the act of violating consent. Paying someone today to commit a future rape is morally evil because it expresses premeditated intent and complicity, not because it “violates future consent.” Consent can’t be violated until there’s a consenting subject - what exists now is your corrupt intention, not the act itself. The moral wrongness lies in planning harm, not in breaching an imaginary contract with a being who doesn’t yet exist. Your just doubling down, collapsing categories and trying to strawman me because your logic is incoherent and your Saturday night live performance of gotcha flopped.

@zurew For the third time - your conflating moral responsibility with consent. Consent applies between subjects that already exist and can willfully agree. Responsibility applies to outcomes you set in motion that will affect beings once they come into existence. You’re trying to discuss temporal consent which is incoherent, compared to temporal ethics (ethics across time) which deals with how our present actions affect future beings or states of the world. Temporal ethics is real but about responsibility and foresight - consent is bounded to subjects that exist and are capable of consent in the present. If we pollute a river that causes future harm - it’s an act of irresponsibility, not non-consensuality - because no one was present to grant it or not. —————— Your rape example proves my point. There’s no such thing as retroactive consent - only retroactive acceptance (forgivness), evaluation or interpretation after the fact. You’re trying to use temporal consent (how the person feels after waking up) to judge temporal ethics (the morality of the act when it was performed). Someone who is unconscious still exists as a subject with right to bodily autonomy. Their capacity for consent exists even when they’re not currently exercising it - and that anyone overriding it makes it unethical to begin with. The act was unethical the moment it began because it was done without consent. The subsequent reaction can bring about forgiveness or trauma - but it can’t retroactively change the immoral nature of the initial choice. Consent is the necessary condition that must be present before the act, not a lucky outcome that might appear after. To have the same action (sex with an unconscious person) either be morally good or evil based on a random dice roll of the victim's subsequent feelings and their consent - is a dangerous foundation for ethics, which is why it’s legally useless. If someone says afterward “I guess it was fine” or “I changed my mind” that doesn’t legally transform a non-consensual act into a consensual one. Likewise, if someone later says “I regret it” that alone doesn’t make a consensual act rape - there has to be evidence that consent was absent at the time. Law deals in objective facts and consent being present, not later feelings. Your claiming that consent can be violated before the capacity for consent exists, as long as that capacity will eventually exist lol. That leads to all kinds of absurdities, stoopid. I can be a ass don’t make me show it:

On the heroin point - you assumed an implication that wasn’t there - didn’t know I had to spell out an obvious nuance as a caveat. Consent is a concept that applies to relationships between existing and capable beings in the present. It can’t apply to those incapable of it or not existing to exercise it. By your logic, every present act would violate the “future consent” of beings who will one day exist - filling a gas tank would become a consent violation against future generations affected by climate change. That logic collapses into paralysis: how could we act at all if every future consequence counted as a consent violation from beings who don’t yet exist? What you’re actually describing isn’t consent but responsibility. If you create a being, you’re responsible for their welfare. That’s why using heroin while pregnant is wrong - not because of “violated consent,” but because it harms someone’s well being. Likewise, if you create a being under good conditions where they can flourish, you’ve fulfilled your responsibility. You’re conflating moral responsibility with consent. And as for calling things stupid - by your own logic, you’re presently violating the future consent of your kids not to look stupid on a forum for trying to word salad your way through a flopped gotcha.

Obviously not lol what a stretch. You’re conflating consent with moral responsibility. My point was that there’s “no possibility of consent or its violation before sentience” - not that this grants license for harm. The absence of consent doesn’t create permission - it simply means the concept of consent doesn’t yet apply.

What’s the premise of anti-natalism? Is it basically that life is suffering and that it’s unethical to bring a life into this world of suffering that it is unable to consent to? Like what Emerald and somethingfunny are discussing above - let’s say we live in a post-scarcity society of abundance due to technological breakthroughs. Does anti-natalism still apply or not? Suffering may be reduced on a material level, but that doesn’t guarantee psychological well being which we may suffer from a lack of despite material wealth. It also doesn’t solve the consent problem because we still can’t get consent from a non-being ticking off a box: to be or not to be? So then it’s not about the conditions of life but about life itself - it’s a metaphysical claim about life which believes that suffering in any form, invalidates the value of existence itself. There’s a difference between a metaphysical claim and a circumstantial lifestyle choice being made based upon conditions.

So consent only comes into question once there’s sentience? If consent doesn’t apply before sentience, then it certainly doesn’t apply before existence. But anti-natalism talks about beings that don’t yet exist at all, not ones that haven’t yet developed consciousness. If there’s no sentience, there’s no subject - and if there’s no subject, there’s no possibility of consent or its violation. Agreed. It's difficult for many people to get by on their own let alone support a family, if they can even partner up with someone to begin with. The problem comes when suffering is taken and universalized as a moral stance in the form of a philosophy in order to cope with that suffering. People feel a need to identity their stance and choices as ''positions''. They journey from identifying as childless - which sounds negative (because less implies lack), then it becomes childfree (which sounds more noble because ''freedom''), but then that sound selfish so it must go the next step and become a ethical concern that shows how much you care - anti-natalism. Lifestyle choices are elevated into ''identities'' and moral philosophies as a compensation for being metaphysically displaced and uprooted from any sort of transcendent identity or belonging - that a mechanised, scientifically rational, materialist culture stripped from them. That's why we have all kinds of subgroups propping up and peoples identities tied to them. It's not simply ''I don't want to have children due to my personal circumstance not being viable'' instead its ''having children is unethical due to lack of consent and introducing them to a life of suffering they have no say in'' and subjecting this moral standard onto others who fall short of it. The philosophy itself is self-negating and self-terminating if adopted at scale and if it were to be a universal ethic or truth. But it’s just a circumstantial choice in a persons life.

If it’s so obviously wrong then point it out. Again - did the non-being consent to not being? Epistemology presupposes existence. If epistemology is about how we know - there must be a knower to know in the first place. We can’t know how a non-existent subject knows or consents, or claim we know about what their preference is - to be or not to be? Which is why consent is reserved for those existing and capable of it. For example, even in existence - we don’t demand consent from babies because they aren’t capable yet. The logic simply goes: suffering is bad, thus to end suffering we eliminate the sufferer. A conversation can be had about suffering, but that’s different to consent.

I don't even feel like spending my energy arguing with you after reading this bro-science. So our big beautiful brains that are energy hungry developed over millions of years by eating grass and nuts? The building blocks of which can't be obtained from a vegan diet deficient in choline, DHA etc. We can live as vegans but didn't evolve from it. We went from butcher to bhudda. Vegans can maintain our current brains only with meticulous planning and supplementation - even then, some nutrients can't be supplemented due to bioavailability. A lot of issues and sup-optimal intake of nutrients takes years to show up as they chip away at our vitality. To do this in one life time is fair, but across generations it could have consequences unless some breakthroughs happen. Forget that side of the discussion and answer this then: Can non-existence be consented to and chosen? There's nobody to be asked. Consent is a relationship between two beings with the capacity for it - not between being and non being. Ethics apply within the realm of existence.

@Something Funny But did they consent to non-existence? Did they consent to non-being? There’s no subject to consent with or not to being with. Existence is its own consent. Being is the universe saying yes to itself. Stage green philosophies are philosophies of empathy that ultimately self terminate. A overcorrection to a Western arc of development that made life mechanical through scientific rationalism and disenchanted life, literally questioned the value of life itself - because science demands questioning everything. Now stage green new age philosophies try to re-enchant life with BEing again - but over correct into philosophies that make being itself an impossibility. A non-vegan diet grew our brains big enough to even platform enough conciousness to contemplate eating non-vegan to begin with. Voluntarily going vegan and depriving the brain of certain nutrients on a long enough time horizon may devolve our brains - shrinking the very vessel for conciousness and “compassion”. Anti-natalism voluntarily extincts the vessel (body) for being to even BE. The issue with both is they deny suffering, rather than sacrilize it. Something religions and much of the world still does - that liberal progressives mock as backward yet suffer for and over correct for. This then becomes the benchmark for “development” but it’s actually Western civilizations self therapy for going down a rabbit hole detour of materialism that much of the world hasn’t. De-colonize spiral dynamics - that takes Western stage green which is a remedy for the Wests own de-souling, and imposes that linear model of development on the world that hasn’t yet de-souled itself and thus doesn’t need to go down the same route to be considered “higher” up the spiral catching up with the Wets that is always “ahead”. Anti-natalists be like - but you’ve suffered rite? Why inflict the possibility of it on a non-being? But did you die? Yes, as we all will. But I lived too. I was a user called Zazen dropping bombass golden nuggets on a forum once - because I studied, and I Zazen’d, and I was alive to even Zazen and be concious in the first place. Something funny, something profound, something with suffering too.

Structural changes and financialization are distorting our economies which is also distorting our politics - feedback loop into each other. We will need a cultural revolution before we can have a political revolution that can handle all the changes coming our way that make our old models obsolete for the new world which de-values our labour (physical plane - automation), our intelligence (mental plane - AI, quantum computing) and our energy (energetic plane - fusion, nuclear etc). With the triad of labour, intelligence and energy / matter - once all three become abundant, scarcity economics as we know it dies. The issue is, just like with financialization - abundance is accrued to oligarchic elites. Which is why we’ll need a cultural-political revolution that subordinates capital to the state - so that it can serve the public rather than the few. Otherwise we’re in for techno feudalism. In a structural sense the West has maintained this dynamic through its “evolution”. Every major technological leap (railroads, oil, internet, AI) has been captured by private oligarchies first, then regulated too late. The logic is: monopolize, financialize, securitize, and drip the benefits down. China’s model with all its faults, is built differently. It treats breakthroughs as national assets, integrated into long term social planning. When China gains efficiency - it tends to invest it downward into infrastructure, housing, education, or production capacity. In the West, efficiency gains get hoovered up to the top to shareholders and speculative capital.

New movie out called Palestine 36

@Breakingthewall What nerdspeak is saying about the similarities of Islamophobia to antisemitism is a good point - I think its because both Muslims and Jews keep a distinctness about them and their own identity (especially orthodox), so their more easily seen as ''other'' or not fully assimilated. And when they become too large as a % of the population then naturally the native / host culture and people don't want to lose their own identity / culture. Being in a democracy where everyone can vote only amplifies and politicizes those tensions because now that ''other'' identity can politically vote for their own vision of how society should be run, which isn't always compatible with how the host culture and people want their society to run. This is why a diverse city like Dubai has stability and way less polarization - because the population is de-politicized. No one feels politically threatened by their neighbor who is ''different'' because they don't have any political power to ''impose'' their politics onto you via the ballot box and state. UK is roughly 80% white, 10% Asian, 5% African and 5% other (East Asian, Middle Eastern etc). UK's muslim population is roughly 6% - but in major cities its close to 15% (London, Manchester - in the 2nd largest city Birmingham its 30%). Those cities are also around 50% non-white / native. So if cities are where the political power, wealth and culture of the country is usually represented - and the host culture / people lose their position in them - naturally this creates a backlash - even if majority of the country is still ''native''. Islamists are a problem - but just like with any extremism it (which is a problem) it represents a super minority of the population - as nerdspeak said. But I do think that the average Muslims is still seen as ''different'' because they have a civilizationally intact identity they stick to - that is distinct from the host country. They don't ''assimilate'' as easily because their boundaries aren't as porous - alcohol I think is a big one which is a social lubricant in much of Western society. For example - Indians can join in on pub culture / after work drinks (common in UK), where as a Muslim wouldn't really partake in that or even if they were present - them not drinking is seen as not ''joining in''. Another is modesty of dress - which makes them stick out too. So now you have almost approaching 1/5 of the cities population seemingly not assimilated and who have a strong identity. Mutli-cultralism seems to only work if the fundamental values are similar - otherwise even without migrants and in a homogenous society you have different cultures at odds with each other - like today in the West, especially the US - we have conservative trad types at oods with liberal progressives. Their value systems are different + they have political rights so its a double whammy of politicization and polarization. One believes men can be women and the other only believes in two genders - the fundamentals of reality are at odds (imagine half a population of flat earthers sharing political space and deciding policies with the other half being round earthers). Look at Connor Mcreggor vs Khabib who are from opposite worlds in terms of value and orientation. Connor is arrogant, loud mouthed and his humour is one of mockery - from a culture of ridiculing , questioning authority and asserting your individual dignity in being able to do so (free speech). This is completely different to Eastern cultures and especially Islamic culture who don't take such things or insults lightly especially to parents or religion. There's a reason your mom jokes are a thing in Western schools and not in other parts of the world lol Another issue is that right now the West doesn't have a solidly cohesive cultural identity. Migrants coming in should assimilate, but assimilate to what? Their has to be some base assumptions and values that are shared for social stability. Today Westerners themselves are asking the question of what ''we'' even is. Case in point: It's beautiful to have distinct countries with their own cultures that are maintained and not diluted in some universal blob of consciousness and homogeneity with open / uncontrolled immigration. People want to feel (need to) a sense of belonging and identity also - so its valid and understandable. There's obviously a smart way of discussing the topic and a not so smart one. Interesting short clip on the grooming gang issue: Moral ambiguity and contradictions in liberalism playing out.

8 min of mic drops

Praying to maintain humanity amongst inhumanity, around everything broken to connect to the unbreakable. In prostration - at the lowest point when the head touches the floor, they speak of the most high. It’s sexier and cooler when Aubrey Marcus types congregate for their shamanic journeys though. But Muslims incorporating a daily dose of remembrance in their own way. oooo thats evil and scary ooo Halloween soon ya know. Hippie new age aesthetics are obviously the right and only way to be spiritual cos they be higher on that spiral dynamic colour. Picking colours like we power rangers..go go power ranger. I see Westerners breaking down in the rat race of urban life cos the barista got the coffee wrong, whilst Gazan kids still singing with a smile after all they’ve been through. The biohacking, journaling, freedom drenched life of hedonism annd “liberties” isn’t enough of a cooling balm for the soul it seems. We assign value to Ryan Holiday stoicism but too easily mock “primitive” sources of strength many still rely on due to our own biases.

The peace of mutually assured destruction still isn’t the one of understanding. They’ve outsourced the fight to proxy means because a direct fight would mean annihilation as you say. Mutually destroying weaker nations instead of mutually assured destruction of all nations. Banger of a video:

Be careful of the identity of being contrarian vs conformist. If the herd (masses) is bad, then why have democracy that allows the herd to vote?

Ideas are information, ideaology is information thought to be wise when it isn’t. The past lacked information and wisdom, today we have information but still lack a critical mass of wisdom. You can have all the information in the world to bust your misinformed bubble - yet lack the wisdom to parse that information - separating signal from noise. Governance ultimately aims to filter wisdom, as it’s utopian to think it can be scaled to the masses. If wisdom can’t be scaled, why have a political system that depends on the wisdom of the masses to guide politics and policy? Across time and cultures there was a acknowledgement of the “elders” or the “wise” council for this reason. But that can also be corrupted. Liberal democracy challenged that and bet on the idea that wisdom can be filtered through the masses if they engage in enough good faith debate, which overtime self corrects - thus free speech became virtue. But now there is less good faith, and less debate - people are sorted into algorithmic sealed bubbles and clash when they encounter another bubble. The liberal rationale is that the individual is primary, and thus their right to speech -and from this assumption a collective of individuals will come together in debate to seek truth and stumble upon a collective wisdom from which to guide politics - thus democracy. The irony is that individualism can cause a sort of narcissism and lack of humility - but humility is needed in truth seeking and good faith debate to begin with. It’s self defeating - unless the culture instills humility as a counter balance. In the past people may have been delusionally misinformed (due to lack of information) - but it was a shared delusion. Today people can be misinformed but in countlesss ways through online echo chambers - so we have polarized delusion. One delusional view of reality clashes with another. Today we are hyper-informed with misinformation, yet suffer from a deficit of wisdom to process it, compounded by a deficit of humility needed to learn from others who might be misinformed differently, or better informed than ourselves. The filtering process has become clogged in a noisy (technological) and narcissistic (cultural) era. China seems to have solved for that by filtering for the wisest leaders, rather than hoping to filter wisdom from the masses, who believe their view of reality is wise (ideological) and others isn’t (leading to polarization). How can the Western political system handle all this?