Predicting the Zeitgeist

[Seshat]

To connect his with your views on sexuality, lots more sex would mean increased population. I'm not saying women and men shouldn't be sexually liberated, and of course there are plenty of ways to prevent/deal with unwanted pregnancies, but even still, lots and lots of sex is still going to result in more babies. Could you imagine if some of these third world countries, where many people are not so sexually liberated, suddenly had a huge rise in promiscuous sex? Considering that in many of these countries the views on abortion skew towards conservative, the population boom could be insane. Sexual liberation is fine, but only in countries where the results can be controlled/dealt with.

It's interesting that you equate sexual liberation with promiscuity, and promiscuity with all hell breaking loose socially. Just one more way religion has injected its hysteria about sex into our collective thought processes, whether or not we consider ourselves religious. To clarify, my views on sexuality aren't that people should be having lots more sex but that people, especially women, shouldn't feel guilty or be socially shamed for their sexuality.

Humans have contributed NOTHING to the planet.

We learn about it, something no other animal is capable of. That's not nothing.

If we hadn't been here in the first place nature would be unadulterated.

For one thing that's not necessarily true--lots of species go extinct without our help and there are cataclysmic events that destroy life, like what happened to the dinosaurs. Also this assumes that we're somehow separate from nature. We're not the only animal that alters our environment, just watch any nature documentary. The one I watched most recently was Life in the Undergrowth about insects, which has a great scene about termite 'skyscrapers.'

Let's look at an abstract conversation (bear in mind that this is just an extreme thought experiment, and does not really reflect my personal views; in other words, I'm not trying to guilt trip parents):

"Life is full of suffering and the risk of even more suffering."
"I know."
"So why would you force this reality upon an innocent creature who had no say in the matter?"
a)"I just wanted a kid."
b)"To do my part to contribute to the human race." (taking the risk, no matter what the consequences, for the good of humanity; cognitive dissonance, since that same parent would not, say, offer his child as a test subject to create life saving vaccines, or give up his child's college fund to potentially help many third world children)
c)"Well, I didn't want a kid, it was an accident" (50 percent of children are "accidents", and that's just based on parents who told the truth, so a more realistic number would probably be about 70-80 percent; the point being: the majority of children are not planned, thus there is no major objective.)

Also, to be a humane parent requires a lot of lying about life's darker truths. Sometimes I think about having to do this, and it bothers me a lot, because it's an ethical lose-lose. Do I really want to bring a child into a world that I have to lie about so he/she doesn't become clinically depressed?

Man, you've got a grim outlook on things! You're right, life is full of suffering, but it's also full of beautiful and amazing shit that blows my mind on a regular basis and there's no way in hell I'd rob any future child of mine the gift of experiencing it. I passed a church one day that had this great quote from, I think Plato, on their sign board: Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. The older I get, the more I find beauty and meaning in the battle itself, not just in the breaks from it. And I don't think you have to lie to your children about any of it--lying to them only does them a disservice. I'm reminded of a little girl I saw on TV whose grandpa was one of the ones killed at the Pentagon when they flew the plane into it. She was crying about him and saying it wasn't fair, and her grandma told her she was right, it wasn't fair, but that the rest of her family was still there for her and had her back. I was so impressed with that, and thought that was absolutely the right thing to say to that poor kid. It gave her some comfort without diminishing the brutal truth that life isn't fair.

So, without leaning completely towards the "dark side", perpetuating the human race also perpetuates varying degrees of unethical behavior.

You know, I'll take it anyway.  

I don't think it really matters if I live to be 40 or 140.

Let's see how you feel about that when you're 39.  

[Miss Anthrope]

It's interesting that you equate sexual liberation with promiscuity, and promiscuity with all hell breaking loose socially. Just one more way religion has injected its hysteria about sex into our collective thought processes, whether or not we consider ourselves religious. To clarify, my views on sexuality aren't that people should be having lots more sex but that people, especially women, shouldn't feel guilty or be socially shamed for their sexuality.

I didn't actually equate promiscuity with all hell breaking loose (though in the right conditions I think it could, like in my example about third world countries), though I do equate sexual liberation with promiscuity (though of course this could be different depending on a society's other values). Your view on sexual liberation might not be the same, but to most people being liberated sexually does equal promiscuity. Humans love sex, and if they can get away with having lots of it with lots of different partners, most are going to take advantage of that. Think of the hippies; when people liberate themselves from societal contraints, they will tend to become indulgent. And why not?  So it all depends on how far one believes sexual liberation should go. I personally don't know any girls from my generation who are ashamed or guilty for their sexuality, except for girls I've known who are particularly promiscuous and are thus ridiculed by some (i.e. called sluts). I'm not saying they should be made to feel bad, but my point is that when I hear "sexual liberation" used today I naturally think of a person's right to be promiscuous.

Also, personally, I think sex carries its own hysteria regardless of religion. It's a powerful thing.

Humans have contributed NOTHING to the planet.

We learn about it, something no other animal is capable of. That's not nothing.

You're right, it isn't "nothing", but what does it contribute to the planet/nature? I can learn all of the notes of a piece of music, but that doesn't benefit the musical piece. It only benefits me and perhaps other people.

And I disagree, animals are quite capable of learning about their environment, it's how they survive. That's kind of like saying animals don't communicate just becasue they don't have speech like humans. And personally, I think limited intelligence can be a pretty good thing; we'll never see dogs create nuclear weapons.

If we hadn't been here in the first place nature would be unadulterated.

For one thing that's not necessarily true--lots of species go extinct without our help and there are cataclysmic events that destroy life, like what happened to the dinosaurs. Also this assumes that we're somehow separate from nature. We're not the only animal that alters our environment, just watch any nature documentary. The one I watched most recently was Life in the Undergrowth about insects, which has a great scene about termite 'skyscrapers.'

You're right about us not being separate from nature (even our technological achievements are technically products of nature). I meant what I said in the context that no other species wages "war" on nature to the extent that we do. No other animal alters its environment to such a degree that it threatens the existence of all other life on the planet.

Man, you've got a grim outlook on things! You're right, life is full of suffering, but it's also full of beautiful and amazing shit that blows my mind on a regular basis and there's no way in hell I'd rob any future child of mine the gift of experiencing it. I passed a church one day that had this great quote from, I think Plato, on their sign board: Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. The older I get, the more I find beauty and meaning in the battle itself, not just in the breaks from it. And I don't think you have to lie to your children about any of it--lying to them only does them a disservice. I'm reminded of a little girl I saw on TV whose grandpa was one of the ones killed at the Pentagon when they flew the plane into it. She was crying about him and saying it wasn't fair, and her grandma told her she was right, it wasn't fair, but that the rest of her family was still there for her and had her back. I was so impressed with that, and thought that was absolutely the right thing to say to that poor kid. It gave her some comfort without diminishing the brutal truth that life isn't fair.

Well, in this case I'd say grim = realistic.

I don't think you can rob an experience from someone who hasn't been born yet (and by that logic abortion should be considered murder). And let's say that you could predict the future, and you knew that at a certain age your future child would be kidnapped and tortured, then brutally murdered. Let's assume that this future is inevitable, despite your prior knowledge of it. Would you still have that child in order not to rob him/her of a few years of the positive parts of life?

And not to detract from the meaning and beauty you find in the battle (I can relate), the truth is that that's just sort of a defense mechanism we develop so that we can trudge onwards. In reality, this is the meaning of life: Being another temporary stepping stone for a completely arbitrary process called evolution in a Universe that does not care.

The battle is for survival, and survival is temporary, so on the personal level, the battle is futile. Yeah, I know, grim. But it's the truth.

I can appreciate the anecdote about the little girl, but that isn't really the type of thing I was talking about (there really wasn't a way to lie to the little girl about that kind of thing, and it wouldn't have made sense for them to say "No, it's perfectly fair.")

I don't think it really matters if I live to be 40 or 140.

Let's see how you feel about that when you're 39.  

How about how i feel about it right now? Although i'm in no rush to die, I'm pretty indifferent about it. To put it one way: I'm not afraid of death, though i'm sure I'll experiece fear if faced with it. But i really don't have any hangups about actually not existing, becasue it's not like I'll be able to lament all the things I never got to do. Basically, I've had my fill, but I'll stick around and pick on the leftovers.

And honestly, I really would rather not live to be so old that I can no longer take care of myself.

In conclusion, I'd like to add once again that I'm not entirely pessimistic, I just find that when you look under the candy-coating there is usually a layer of bitterness under everything. of course, under that bitterness might be more sweetness, but that pattern tends to go on and on. So there really isn't anything to argue about, it's all a matter of perspective. Me, I'm a bit apprehensive about bringing a child into this world and I believe it is good to examine the rpos and cons rather than just having a kid for the hell of it. It's one thing to take a chance on my own life and well-being, but to do so with a person who does not exist yet is something I need to find some very big "pros" for, especially with the knowledge that my intentions and justifications could also be the products of survival instincts and not as "pure" as I might like to think.

[Sophus]

Does anyone think we'll get to a level of sophistication when "punishment" and promises of it are used solely to prevent crimes from happening and not using them as sick twisted means of revenge?

[AlP]

Does anyone think we'll get to a level of sophistication when "punishment" and promises of it are used solely to prevent crimes from happening and not using them as sick twisted means of revenge?

I'm already there. But the whole of humankind? Dunno.

[Ultima22689]

Does anyone think we'll get to a level of sophistication when "punishment" and promises of it are used solely to prevent crimes from happening and not using them as sick twisted means of revenge?

For sure, I think some countries may already be on their way there. America will always be last though, we always seem to be though. For example of a country howver I think the Netherlands is one. Apparently their jails are at the point where they are too empty and they are closing down some prisons  because the crime just isn't as widespread as it is like over here in America.