Double points for being crablike. Everything becomes crab.

Time to make some agua de pepino.

No one has to do anything. Anyone donating their time and/or money to a worthwhile cause and charity is a champion in my book.

I feel like people are unaware there are intentional communities doing the same but without the religious basis.

That’s to say most people start with a very grounded sense of reality until they encounter something that model can’t deal with such as those epistemological arguments. Science like everything else is built from assumptions, things that seem true but we can’t prove. Stuff like didn’t the past actually happen. It’s typically when one notices reality is stranger than science can manage that one allows themselves to entertain other concepts.

Just a quick quip, it may literally be the case the universe is indeed physically infinite. We don’t know if it is or isn’t. That said, yeah we can indeed create mental constructs that don’t have to obey reality. Linguistically I can create contradictions. I can say on a flat plane there is a square with five sides which is even mathematically impossible yet I can put the words together, create the idea of it. Also yeah Cantor and the scale of infinities is fun. It may be the case we discovered the mathematics for something we’ve yet to discover in reality which happens from time to time.

As they say if it’s worth while it’s probably not easy, if its easy it’s probably not worthwhile. Hate and resentment are easy, forgiveness and peace is difficult. Until one’s enemy is their friend the war is never over. The best war is won without ever taking a single shot. Many things turn into this multivariate balancing act where there really isn’t an ultimate good option, something will have to give here or there, but as you said the intention and the attempt alone are commendable.

Unless it’s always empty forever and always.

Can’t say, I’m sure some do. There’s definitely clean and peaceful methods. I would say, if you’re really gonna exit may as well max out as many credit cards and loans as humanly possible and have a wild time and pick some sort of exciting or crazy way to go out, like skydiving without a shute.

You were our only hope. So many have died in your absence.

Most definitely, it’s essentially a full Linux PC. You could do a lot of things with it.

Never connect it to your wifi and use an open source Linux or android media box instead. If you can buy a tv or projector without any smart device baked in.

Yeah I get you, there’s enough death cults trying to end the world already. I mean one can take it in different ways. In the most grounded sense it’s physically true. Like there’s not actually a gap between physics, chemistry, biology, sociology and so on, it’s one singular continuous reality. There’s no actual barrier between your body and everything else, that’s just a perception mainly due to a limited awareness.

Of course one can take it in a pansychism manner and I often do. It’s not too difficult to get there for a more rigid materially minded individual. As you already have one just has to make a trip through epistemology first. Like classic arguments such as Descartes demon, Plato’s cave, Chung Tzu’s butterfly, Boltzmann brains, and last Thursdayism. That is the most grounded science based version of reality isn’t as concrete as most minds would prefer it to be. If you don’t know those epistemological arguments I highly suggest looking them up.

I agree, a human mind’s version is likely limited. Like we’re aware of the limited perception of ants and chimps yet often assume we are not similarly limited. Another one I play with is causality. Like if it’s always true then everything in this moment was caused by something in a previous and those by something previous and so on until infinity or something happened that was not caused or causality and human thought isn’t capable of capturing reality as it is.

All the fun stories aside I always come back to base faith. That is it doesn’t matter if I’m a Boltzmann brain and reality just came into being a moment ago, the goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds whenever and wherever I can. Of course I suck at doing that sometimes (a lot of the time) but try not to dwell on the failures beyond the learning experience they can provide.

Like Ram Dass likes to say, be love now. If nothing matters I can still enjoy internally and externally manifesting the waking sensation of love all the same.

I get you, it’s just that if you follow the implications of antinatalism it bleeds into efilism. You’re explaining why they view birth as unethical but it leads to conclusions that work against the concept of personal choice as reasoned above. Now to add to the issue at hand i would imagine such individuals are more than willing to limit personal choice in other contexts. Like we should stop people from murdering even if that’s their personal choice and we should imprison them even if it’s their personal choice to be free. Absolute personal choice is a messy concept to get behind.

I do respect your time and appreciate our discussion. I get that you’re not in that corner so to speak. I guess I’m more of a non-dualistic unified reality nihilist, not only does it not matter but division between one thing and another is more so a perspective or illusion of domain than an actual aspect of the true nature of reality. Here is maybe a better explanation. Everything is one, Brahman fell asleep and everything is just incarnations of Brahman in the same way when you dream everything is just you, incarnations of your mind. You see a tree while sleeping, well that’s just your mind in the form of a tree.

To answer both questions, it really depends how drunk you are. To the extreme of black out, what is the experience like? You wake up somewhere hungover or still a bit drunk not knowing how you got there and not able to remember anything past a certain moment. How much control did you have? Not much. In that state any flying by emotion or idea can really take charge regardless of how bad it is. Most don’t remember doing or saying any of the things they did or said.

Seems the ones I’ve run into were both, particularly on their subreddit. The point still kind of stands. If one believes they ought not have been born then there are solutions to their dilemma and if they truly believe that then they are free to act upon that, particularly in locations with legal assisted suicide.

Now as to the morality of the act of having children. It really does depend on some axioms. The first one that comes to mind is whether or not we have free will, what was the state of a mind (if any) before being born, what is the overall state of reality. In a circumstance like samsara being or not being birthed as a human on this earth isn’t really going to change the overall circumstance, same kind of situation with pansychism in many versions. These are all things once again no one has any answers to either way so the best course is an agnostic take. Maybe having kids is immoral, maybe not, no one really knows and it’s okay that we don’t know right now.

It’s a take but if anyone went to kill any of them I’m betting they would attempt to defend their life or loved ones. It’s easy to say it’s less suffering to not exist although no one actually knows what if anything exists after death or before birth. In the case of pansychism or something similar to samsara the story could be more involved than many think aka it’s not as simple as just not being born a human or dying to end suffering.

I would specify that we ought to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for all minds. That is not all suffering is needless, for instance surgery, exercise, physical therapy, mental healing are often accompanied by great suffering but ultimately bring one closer to wellbeing. It’s the suffering that brings one away from wellbeing that ought to be diminished. Now the belief that there is no mind before birth or after death is based on assumptions the same as one believing there is mind before birth or after death. The most accurate stance would be an agnostic one, aka just admitting we don’t actually know one way or the other.

That’s a tad better but absolute extinction seems a smidge extreme when humans can indeed live in symbiosis with nature. I’m guessing a mind that has reached the conclusion extinction is the one and only way is quite unhappy.

Are they equally pleasant to talk to?

It is very useful for collecting votes, justifying increased spending, and is ultimately lucrative. A lot of political topics are like this, IRL reality is more complex and no one has a silver bullet

The antinatalists are always a fun and cheerful bunch. . .

I’ll give you a real world analogy. Have you ever tried to balance rocks? You can get two or three rocks balanced but that could put one of the lower balance points out of balance. It’s like that. That is the assumption that code has a singular dependence and it’s all linear is incorrect in most circumstances. Code often has many dependencies and many other parts depending on it.