koningrobot

Your examples reveal that you don't get the point. Using a for loop instead of a higher-level abstraction like reduce or sum is a lot like using lambda calculus instead of a summation in mathematics. We're trying to climb out of the Turing tarpit here by introducing useful abstractions, just like the summation operator was once introduced to make mathematics easier.

With reader macros, reading can be made arbitrarily complex:

  (read-from-string "#.(print :foo)")

I didn't assume that; what you seem to assume is that death penalty cases more often lack due process than other cases. You may well be right (I have no idea), but that would still only be a weak argument against the death penalty and a strong argument for ensuring due process.

I suppose what makes the death penalty different is that you can't fix injustice after the fact. Once it's carried out, it doesn't matter whether the verdict is overturned.

How is this the lack of due process an argument against the death penalty? It doesn't follow.

Please read http://blog.izs.me/post/2353458699/an-open-letter-to-javascr... again, especially the restricted production part. Using semicolons everywhere doesn't cover your ass in those cases. Granted, I've never ever encountered these, but still -- it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

I see at least two implications of what I said, one being that freedom is an absolute zero, the other being that shifting freedom around is a zero-sum game. Maybe these two are related in some game-theoretic way, I'm not sure. The only fundamentally productive way of obtaining freedom is by getting more control over our environment, i.e., technological progress.

I understand the distinction you're making between freedom and free will; I mentioned it because the compatibilist notion of free will is what you're calling freedom here. But yeah, it's probably not too relevant to the original discussion.

Nothing, the problem is not with reality (of course :-). The problem is that most people seem to think about freedom as something positive. You can only create freedom for Joe by coercing Jane to not violate it. This enables the kind of scenario that the parent to my original comment describes.

This is because of the nature of freedom. Freedom is to constraints as silence is to sound. Constraints are the things that positively exist, freedom only exists as the negative space.

This is also why the concept of free will is so problematic: how free does will have to be to be called free will? Does it have to be free from the laws of physics? Does it have to be free from coercion?

I think there are more concepts where we have it the wrong way around like this.

There's nothing for humans to do in "other places to live" either. We accomplish nothing by being here. In fact it would be better if we gave up already.

A human is born in need of air, water, food, and pastime, and the best we can do is satisfy these needs only partially. There is no reason to create these needs (other than to partially satisfy existing needs that didn't need to be created), but there are many reasons not to create these needs.

You correctly note that the universe is extraordinarily harsh. I see no rational reason to continue fighting it. There are only superstitious reasons, like pride, sunk costs, think of the children, equivocating humanity the race with human the individual, identifying with your genetic material, assigning intrinsic value to life, etc.

That's what I was saying -- neither is more important than the other.

They are not more important; without the sounds there wouldn't be the intervals of silence.

What do you mean by "balance"? Is it that which you and the culture that conditioned you would consider "normal"?

<i>That is to say, people want children, even though its not in their self interest.</i> It certainly isn't in the children's interest either, because they can't be benefited by being brought into existence (they are not waiting in some pre-existence limbo wishing to become existent).

Are you (aside from your main point) saying that the calories in meat and vegetables come from elsewhere than carbohydrates and fats? There is lots of protein in lean meat, but protein is poisonous -- you can't depend on it alone for energy.

From the article: "Parents who don't impose anything on their children, you are blessed." I agree with this, but realize that there is no such thing as a parent who does not impose anything on their children. Creating a child is an imposition.

Ostensibly, if I want to learn two languages, I write an interpreter for the one in the other. In reality, I try to make a habit of using it whenever I need to do anything small (from simple arithmetic to implementing some graph algorithm I don't understand yet). Couple this with a habit of looking for better ways to do things that come out clunky and you're off! In real reality, I usually dismiss languages on first sight because I don't like their complicated syntax.

I saw that post and was going to ask why people were downvoting it, but then I figured it was borderline offtopic, so I didn't bother. If you're looking for some rarely like-minded people, come live the good life at http://www.antinatalism.net/. :-)

You say that I want to reduce suffering at all costs. This is misleading because there is no significant cost. The cost might be unfulfilled childwishes or no one to take care of the elderly. What is not a cost is the happiness these unborn miss out on. There is no one to experience the "missing out on happiness" (which is really just another form of suffering).

Regarding "forcing" someone into being: you have a problem with my words, not with my reasoning. As I said, birth can be a harm because the victim is still around to suffer its consequences. Death or "never being born" cannot.

Most people disagree that people can't be harmed by birth. Women are rather sternly discouraged to use alcohol during pregnancy. It is frowned upon for people with any significant genetic problems to reproduce. Incest is also taboo. Many people would think it better if the poor would not have kids. This has no bearing on the truth, of course, but I would be surprised if you didn't make similar judgments. It is clear that there are at least some cases where pre-existent beings' future well-being is taken into consideration.

The question then becomes "where do you draw the line?", and reason would draw it where I do (at "nobody should procreate"). The idea is simple, if you're willing to suppress your inner pedant: those who are never born do not suffer and they do not miss out on anything. This is the bottom line, and all the pedantry in the world won't change this fact.

The only case that could -- MAYBE -- be made is that if the kid's life turns out just fine, it wasn't too bad to create him. Just like an attempted murderer could say, of his surviving victim, "sure I tried to murder him, but look -- the dude's doing fine!". Things may have turned out alright, but I wouldn't say that attempting to murder a person is acceptable (beyond the intentions involved).

If I gave you a wheelchair, you might ask me what the hell you need a wheelchair for. Only after I have gnawed off your legs will it make sense. Before this, you had no need for a wheelchair. Similarly, the unborn have no need for a life that turns out just fine.

Procreation is never in the interest of the newborn. Suffering is guaranteed. Happiness cannot be used as a justification. It's all there, isn't it?

No, you have it precisely the wrong way around. The harm done by birth is harm because the victim is still around to suffer it. Compare this to the harm done by death, where there is no such victim anymore.

As I said before, the question of whether I should stay alive even if I don't think it is worth it is way more complicated than the question of whether new lives should be begun. One complication is that suicide causes non-negligible stress for both the suicide and their surroundings.

I challenge you to back up your implicit assertion that this is all in my head with an actual argument. Show me that I'm wrong.

Thanks sincerely for the advice, but I already know these things. As I said, they have no bearing on whether it is acceptable to create new persons.

I don't know much about philosophy. Negative utilitarianism (minimizing harm) seems to fit me fairly well, but I would call myself a philantropic antinatalist.

The point is not arbitrary because it is my life and I get to choose what I do with it. I do seek contentment in spite of it, and I find it in "the zone". But this is irrelevant.

You say it's not your business whether or not I pass on my genes. Is it also not your business whether or not I murder somebody you do not know? Creating new persons is not something to be taken lightly, it's at least up there with murder because birth entails death.

By all means realize the absurdity and seek contentment, just don't force others into having to come the same long, stressful way to this revelation.

You are confusing the right to continue one's own life with the right to create someone else's life. If individual beings want to continue their lives, then that is just fine. It is unethical, though, to create new lives. Where is the problem?

The need for joy is a fact of life. Joy, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for joy, just like heroin, no matter how plentiful, cannot justify imposing on someone the need for heroin. Surely everyone agrees with the latter, why not with the former?

I don't believe for a second that you like suffering. Would you want to spend the rest of your life at the hands of a skilled torturer? I don't think so. Therefore, you don't like suffering.

What you do like is a combination of suffering with benefits. You like suffering when it makes you stronger. I call bullshit and say you like becoming stronger, and you'd do away with the suffering if you at all could.

And what good is the being stronger anyway? It serves only, maybe, to avoid or diminish future suffering.

I'd go so far as to say that what you like is short-term suffering if, and because, it helps you avoid long-term suffering. You "like" the pain you feel when you put your hand on a hot stove because you can use it to know you are about to burn your hand. The pain helps you avoid more pain.

How about if you could know you are about to burn your hand without feeling this pain? How about if you didn't need hands at all? You see my point? The benefit of "not burning your hand" is only a benefit because the alternative is worse. You can't win, you can only minimize your losses.

Don't get me wrong; I like life most of the time, and I have had these "simply beautiful" experiences you describe. But that is no justification for forcing other people to live. Because that is what my comment, though unclear on this, was ultimately about: no more kids. For anyone. Ever.

Once you are in life, you are guaranteed to suffer, and you need hands, and all this wisdom about not being able to have your cake and eat it too, learning to enjoy the simple things (i.e., be complacent), the world not owing you anything, et cetera. But these things are not relevant to the question of whether procreation is acceptable.

I will consider your suggestion. I like to believe I already suffer my fair share for worthy causes, but I may be wrong.

Yes, it would be best (in the sense of "least bad") if no sentient being existed at all.

Whether already existing people like life is like asking whether already addicted people like heroin. You can't use the result to justify forcibly addicting people to heroin.

Yes. Possibly irrationally (reality is not that simple), I choose to stay alive. It is my life after all.

The problem is with creating new lives. Birth inflicts both a life sentence and a death sentence on the newborn, without their consent. That is simply wrong.

There has been continuous suffering and pain since the first prokaryotes came into existence several billion years ago. I can't speak for the grandparent, but yes, I am planning to put a halt to it. There is all the reason to do so, and no reason not to.

This is wrong. One shouldn't have to vote to be left alone. Reality is different, I know, but it isn't one's laziness that is to blame. (PS: I vote.)