Garbage in and Garbage Out (Don Quixote, Notes from the Underground, and Kiffe Kiffe Tomorrow).

 Garbage in and Garbage Out

The means by which one may learn and therefore alter the self are few but by a few mediums there may come to be many peculiar senses of behavior and identity. Books, for example, are a common medium that influences one’s self. Although many of us may read many sorts of books, the common medium, we nonetheless tend to end with a different sense of self. This is so due to the possible different interpretations of a book and or the sorts of books read as well as one’s predisposing identity held. To argue this case, I look towards Don Quixote, The Underground Man, and Yasmina. These characters, due to their varying vertical identities, develop distinct horizontal identities despite being heavily influenced by books; these books—and/or written words—create a contrast in identity as, in the end, produce a much different self than what was held before. These characters also share a something in common: the lack of a social environment from which to develop a sense of horizontal identity. This being so, it would behoove one to choose a medium like a book so to intentionally achieve one’s desired self instead of looking towards the immediate social environment. This desired self is, of course, up to one’s self,—whatever one wants—be it similar to Yasmina or Don Quixote’s sense of self.

Though Don Quixote’s tale is rather laughable, there is a lot about him that is quite noteworthy as his tale not only exhibits the adoption of a horizontal identity from books but also a rejection of the identity while on the deathbed.  Don Quixote, by ill chance or not, was notably driven “quite insane” after being absorbed within his books of chivalry; this sort of self-inflicted insanity, intentional or not, forms a new identity by which Don Quixote lives to fulfill for the most part (Cervantes 27).  Now Don Quixote, after having been driven insane, for the majority of the story retains an identity distinct from his seemingly vertical identity held before being driven mad and thus holds a horizontal identity; prior to this event, Don Quixote was a simple hidalgo farmer. This changes as Don Quixote separates himself from—what we can assume—the boring and vertical farmer life and pursues something much more exciting and different: knight errantry.  In order to remedy this problem of an unsatisfactory lifestyle and vertical identity, he must change both his lifestyle and identity and he does this despite being isolated from any other means of an identity to adopt. Thus Don Quixote “took to reading books of chivalry” for a source or foundation in which to base a new identity upon (Cervantes 26). While Don Quixote lives out his newly adopted horizontal identity, he become famous and seemingly fond of his knighthood until he later regrets or repents his knight errantry, claiming that “I was mad, and now I am sane” (979). It is only at the end of Don Quixote’s life does he regret adopting the horizontal identity that he did. With Don Quixote “leaving this life with scruples of conscience” and begging the author of the book which details the his own adventures to forgive him for the “gross absurdities contained in [the] book”, it seems fair to assert that this occurrence in the book forewarns the reader to be wary of any identity they adopt in their life. In the case of Don Quixote, he was so enamored with books of knight errantry that he decided to adopt this identity from those books. If he were more careful to have not adopted such an identity by means of rationality or abstinence and avoided this identity stemming from a book medium, then perhaps he may have come across a less regretful life and identity. Furthering from this point, it is important to read books that are beneficial in the long-term and not one that you will regret in the future. It is important to avoid putting garbage into your mind because the garbage, in turn, will affect your mindset and your mindset affects your actions. If you put garbage, you will get garbage out and this is something Don Quixote experiences on his deathbed, unfortunately. However this is one tale as to how the pursuing of an identity via books ends. In the contrast, the Underground Man’s story is more of a “reformative punishment” as he, unlike Don Quixote, is aware of his identity and how he sometimes loathes it whereas Don Quixote only dislikes what was his identity at the very end of his life (123).            

            The distinction drawn between Don Quixote and the Underground man could likely be caused by the sorts of books that alter their identity and perspectives. Whatever vertical identity that was once held by the Underground Man is not quite clear but his newer, more horizontal, identity can be labelled as being hyperconscious. The Underground Man adopts this hyperconscious identity from, essentially, his “underground” and “lousy crack in the wall” where he learns from books. But why does he do so? The Underground Man explains, “[t]o escape their redicule, I deliberately started to study as best I could” (71). See, whereas Don Quixote lived a simple life on a farm,—isolate most likely—the Underground Man grew away from the “children” from his “school” as they were so dumb that the Underground Man found them as “repulsive” (71). The Underground Man, at sixteen, was able “to read books that they couldn’t read” and “understood things they had never heard of” (71). As time passes, the Underground Man, at one time, refers to a theoretical situation he may find himself in as “unliterary”; this provides evidence to support that his hyperconscious horizontal identity is from the result of his book reading and causes him to be repulsed by whatever is not “literary” (73). So again, one ought to be wary of how their actions are affected by what goes into one’s mindset. In this case, the Underground Man’s hyperconscious self came about from being socially isolated and turned to books in the stead of a social environment. Furthermore, this hyperconsciousness, by default, allows him to essentially realize and be aware of his state of being and those around him. As the Underground Man notes, himself, “[t]hanks to this heightened consciousness, for example, a scoundrel knows that he is indeed a scoundrel”(21). Contrast this to Don Quixote who was not quite aware of his radical change in identity after being absorbed in books of chivalry. Based on a lot of what the Underground Man states throughout the book, it is safe to assume he quite learned in logic and the learned generally received knowledge derived from books of sorts. So, as the Underground Man reads and learns, his mindset became increasingly conscience; whereas Don Quixote is self-absorbed into his own perspective to the point where he is lesser conscience compared to the Underground Man. If Don Quixote were more aware of himself and identity prior to his last days, then perhaps he would have renounced his identity much sooner than he did. But all this is not to say that the Underground Man is better than Don Quixote in terms of identity and self-awareness but, rather, different. For the Underground Man, his identity grew too conscience and from this hyperconsciousness is the Underground Man born only to suffer from “full-blown sickness” (20). Assuming that humans prefer to avoid suffering, chronic and acute, then to suffer from the hyperconscious horizontal identity is not the greatest thing. Whether or not one would prefer to suffer from this chronic illness instead of the acute and short-lived lamentations of one’s identity as exhibited by Don Quixote is up to the individual; but as for the Underground Man, he would have much rather be a “stupid” man, because “it’s quite beautiful” to be unable to be morally decisive or sincere like the hyperconscious who is likened to the “mouse” (22-23). To simply be “conscious” like the “men of action, for example, would be sufficient enough” (20). The “men of action” is a sort of identity the Underground Man often longs for as they do not suffer the “sickness” like the Underground Man (20).  So too does the Underground Man lament his adopted horizontal identity founded upon books as Don Quixote much did but we do not witness the death of the Underground Man but, rather, his strife caused by being his horizontal self. This horizontal self which the Underground Man, at times, wishes to a stupid man and not his horizontal self but it was too late. For, the Underground man, having read those books and establishing an identity upon logic, would be unable to simply not know he is indeed a “scoundrel” because he is “hyperconscious” and it is unlikely he could revoke this hyperconsciousness (21). Alas, so too does the Underground Man portray what it is like to not adopt an identity well enjoyed to where he would be satisfied. Perhaps if Don Quixote and the Underground Man were to have read books that would not put them at odds with society, they would have not come across identities that would inevitably bring about strife and lamentations. Perhaps, to a degree, the lessons from these books and characters is to assimilate with society to some degree so as to not self-loathe the adopted horizontal identity? One character from a book who happens to do this is fairly more modern character, Yasmina.

            Yasmina exhibits, arguably, the moderate horizontal identity. The sort of identity that is in the middle between both Don Quixote and the Underground Man; this identity partially stems from a book medium like the identities of Don Quixote and the Underground Man. Though, it is important to note that Yasmina does not solely use a book medium but also a social group sort of medium which may further differentiate Yasmina from the other characters. Now, despite Yasmina emigrating from Morocco to France and raising her daughter, Doria, in a HLM and banliueue, she too lacks an environment from which to form a horizontal identity aside from books and social programs which do influence the development of her horizontal identity. This is comparable to both Don Quixote and the Underground Man but, more specifically, the Underground Man’s act of reading books to understand things. As Yasmina is in a sort of cultural-self liminal space, she is at risk for not culturally assimilating as is urged by the French Government and or betraying her vertical sense of self. It is only near the end of the books does Yasmina begin to adopt a similar horizontal identity as Doria. In the beginning of Kiffe Kiffe Tomorrow, much of Doria’s and Yasmina’s attitudes can be with “Kif-Kif”, same shit different day. As time passes, and the two begin to assimilate and get comfortable with their surroundings, the tone and attitude begins to be able to be summed up with “Kiffe Kiffe” which marks a much brighter, happier, and optimistic tone. This happier tone can be seen when Yasmina becomes “happier, more radiant” after starting a course (132). Prior to this, Yasmina had trouble with the French language in general but she now “stops in the street” so to read “billboards or shop signs” and, even, “newspaper” (132). This is not some minor change within her sense of self and identity. Her vertical self struggled with being in a foreign land away from the bled and now her horizontal self has begun to adapt to the French society. “[B]ut it’s a start”; and this start was obviously drastic enough to be noticed by “Cyborg Services” that took note of her “progress” (132). This sort of integration with society is far from what Don Quixote and the Underground Man achieve. Both Don Quixote and the Underground Man ignore society so to pursue their own sense of self; Yasmina, however, does not. Why? Perhaps it is because she does have a child to care for, after all. Nonetheless, the use of book/literary medium and social programs balances out her vertical self. The self that is a beur, an Arab immigrant in France and her horizontal identity, the self that is in the process of integrating within France. As the book ends, it is not noted that Yasmina suffers from the new identity that she forms and she does not renounce this identity either unlike how Don Quixote and the Underground Man do.

This being so, I contend that integration with society can increase one’s happiness and contentment. By not focusing too much into reading books that prevent one’s self from integrating with society, a happy medium of the vertical and horizontal self can be achieved. Yasmina’s horizontal identity is not as radically different from her previous vertical self when compared to Don Quixote and the Underground Man. Don Quixote “forgot about even running his property” and “his foolish curiosity reached” to such a point where “he sold acres of arable land to buy these books of chivalry” (26). This marks Don Quixote’s complete and utter absconding from his former self which Yasmina simply does not do. The Underground Man, too, changes radically after reading books to escape his vertical self when he “deliberately started to study as best” he could (71). This marks the time wherein the Underground Man abandons his less conscious self to reach “sickness” or, that is, hyperconsciousness (20). Now note how these two men regard their absconding of their vertical self for the horizontal self. These two men, in the end, regret what they had done. But not Yasmina, however, as she becomes “happier, more radiant” and this is utterly different from the two men who, rather, become much more tenebrous—grave even (132). So, my message and point is this. Be careful of the choices you make in life. By choosing to read certain books, to associate with certain types of people, to pursue an identity, you must keep in mind how these could possibly determine your future self and happiness. As exhibited by our two men, they did not quite—to put it laconically—think things through. My sentiments and argument, in a sense, can be summed with.

                        “A lot of people are filled with negativity, “garbage in garbage out”. What you read gets filtrated into your mind. What you watch gets processed through your emotions. What I mean by “garbage in garbage out” is: Be careful of what you take in because it could be polluting your mind. When you talk about creating a mindset. Bottom line is this: If you put garbage into your mind. You’ll get garbage out of your mind. Your thoughts are very important because your thoughts create clarity. Your thoughts drive your actions and your actions create your character. So what you read, what you listen to, is very very important (Greydon Square).”

(A photo of mine)

On Dostoevsky's Hyperconscioussness

On Hyperconsciousness

To think one thing with a certain perspective and then to rebut what was previously thought is wearisome and thorough introspection, painfully pleasurable. This is what, to me, is a reoccurring theme within "Notes from the Underground". Dostoevsky's Underground Man is aware of every man's distinct consciousness and "tries to keep one step ahead of [them and] every other point of view on him" (Mikhail Bakhtin). The Underground Man lives with himself constantly rebutting and arguing from different possibilities and perspectives of what has, is, and will happen. He, however, knows this and that, indeed, is able to have the final or determinant word. With this being so, he is the ultimate decider who presides over his own case and self, perspective and all; would it then not be possible for him to disregard all of what may be thought of him and act regardless of the apparent others being possibly judging him? Arguably not, for he is the Underground Man. Why does the Underground Man — henceforth referred to as UM — act and think as if he knows so much and can assume so much of those he observes or comes in contact with? As I see it, those that are hyperconscious like UM tend to be bookish and use only observed or imagined experience as opposed to lived experience; “The Notes from the Underground” sheds light on how this is not the best way to base assumptions or ascertain truth. The reader may wonder what is the point of such an objective and I argue the objective to be that the reliance on theoretical hypotheticals, imagined experiences, and the ilk are not absolute when applied to every human; to do such a thing would lead to a woeful and painful existence resulting in the fleeing towards the underground like our Underground Man.   

                Basing one’s life on imagined and observed experiences is a quintessential trait of both the Underground Man and the hyperconscious man. However, such a foundational trait leads what plagues the Underground Man: a solitary, dolorous, inert, and uncomfortable life. As “Notes from the Underground” would have it, to be this conscious is to be sick—“to be too conscious is a full-blown sickness” (Dostoevsky 20). The UM contrasts what it is to be too conscious to what it is to be simply just conscious with “[t]hanks to this heightened consciousness, for example, a scoundrel knows that he is indeed a scoundrel, as though it were any consolation to a scoundrel to be conscious that he really is one” (21). See, if the UM were to be a scoundrel, then he would know that he is indeed a scoundrel and may think or act accordingly but the average scoundrel thinks himself not a scoundrel and acts thusly. As described by the UM previous to the last used quote, he talks about how this consciousness “sank” him into a “mire” (20). No longer is the UM able to act like the “normal” or “spontaneous” man he describes who is “stupid” (22-23). The hyperconscious man is not spontaneous and, if slapped, then he would not do a thing; for, “I would not be able to get back at anyone for anything, because I would be unable to bring myself to do anything” (22). Why? It is because he will “think and consequently do nothing” (22). Those that do, however, instantaneously strike in vengeance are considered genuine and normal human beings, for they do not pause in deference to contemplate if what they are “morally decisive” or hold on to “sincerity” (22-23). This leads the UM to compare himself to a mouse. The mouse may be offended like a man who is slapped but if it were to retaliate, then it will “have pent up even more spite than l’homme de la nature et de la vérité” (23). This mouse, however, “thanks to its heightened consciousness disavows any justice in the matter” and the mouse becomes miserable as it “surrounds itself with so much vileness in the form of questions and doubts” and, essentially, wallows in spite and is laughed at by the spontaneous man (23). All this explains why it is that the hyperconscious man retreats to the underground and its “lousy crack in the wall” and its natural spite or envy of the spontaneous and genuine man (24); it is because the hyperconscious man retreats underground that he relies on observational and imagined experiences as opposed to what is experienced.

                I argue that “The Notes from the Underground” illustrates how this retreating of the hyperconscious man and his reliance on observational and imagined experiences is a terrible sickness—one to be avoided.  How did our UM attain these observational and imagined experiences that he uses to build his character and make his judgements? It is hinted at many times but it becomes overt later on with “I was so used to thinking and imagining everything as though it were from a book, and envisioning everything in the world as I had already fabricated it in my dreams” (118). Perhaps, at first glance, it may seem possible to accurately make assumptions of people by contemplation and aided by books and imagination. However, the UM learns that his assumptions are often wrong and, seemingly, makes a fool of himself. Liza, the girl he sleeps with, at first recognizes that the UM is indeed not genuine. After a lengthy conversation filled with seemingly out-of-character sentiments expressed by the UM, Liza states that it “sound[ed] just like you took it from a book” (97). Most likely, the UM never lived through any physical experiences that would have led him to say what he did to Liza but, rather, he read and observed books or people in order to say what he did; this causes him to not be genuine but to be fake and Liza sees this. After Liza points this out, UM first almost flatters her before he vituperates the girl to the point to where she is “wailing [and] sniveling” (99). He continues to further this by telling Liza how “you’ll be lucky if you’ll die from consumption” and “you’ll die, everyone will abandon you” (100); whether or not he has directly observed evidences or instances of girls like Liza that would substantiate his claims is not clear but it is likely that his assumptions are largely theoretical and based on, say, books he has read. This manner of learning gets the UM nowhere and, in the end, arguably repents for his actions, for the “Notes from the Underground” “is not literature, but reformative punishment” (123).

                Furthermore, reformative punishment, by definition is intended to punish in order to reform. This can be taken by the reader or intended by the writer in a few ways. Be the reader hyperconscious, reading “Notes from the Underground” serves to jab at the reader into becoming less like the Underground Man as he is, in the end, does not quite lose or gain anything but suffering. Or, perhaps,  It is best not to be like the UM is what is illustrated by “The Notes from the Underground”; to live underground and observe the world from a crack and draw mainly from imagined experiences does not only result in a non-genuine self but is “a result of moral corruption in my corner” (123). In addition, “all of the traits of an antihero have deliberately been compiled here” (123). However, those that are unfortunately hyperconscious like the UM strives only to “become some kind of unprecedented generic human being” and those like the UM are at a loss when without a book (123). It could be that those like the UM absorb a sort of identity harbored within whatever book is being read but, without the book, the identity is lost. This may explain why the UM acts like he does when he is interacting with his peers, especially with Liza. Whatever identity it is that the UM is trying to wear repels and estranged Liza from him in the end and remains in solitude. He compares himself to the "stillborn", having not "been born from living parents" (124). Our Underground Man, however, manages to make such a state of being a sort of identity, having “just taken to the extreme what you have never dared to take even halfway” (123). Not only does he claim to have taken this “allness” to the extreme, but he daresay “in the end I am more alive than you” (123). This is a bit paradoxical as the Underground man is both like a stillborn fetus but, also, more alive than the average man. Nonetheless, the Underground Man has brought to light what it is like to be hyperconscious and it is not quite as genuine or jovial as the average man who is not hyperconscious. The hyperconscious’ painful reformative punishment stems from the pursuit of an identity.

                This pursuit for an identity brings the pursuer towards pains, estrangements, and other ill retinue as demonstrated by Don Quixote; though, Don Quixote seemed to have a more pleasant time pursuing his identity than the Underground Man. Don Quixote, however, much like the Underground Man, suffered as he pursued the identity of a knight and estranged a many, ultimately dying and decrying his previously self-claimed knighthood. As the Underground Man put on an identity when talking to Liza in the brothel, Don Quixote does so too—“now I acknowledge my folly and the peril in which I was placed by reading [those books]” (Cervantes 977). The nature of the assumed identities are much different but the root of both identities are based upon books. The results of such self-assumed identities have different results with Don Quixote initially estranging himself from his family but ultimately becoming famous for his comical but sometimes funny and nonsensical deeds. In the case of the Underground Man, there is a much more apparent suffering from grave introspection and estrangements from society and Liza. Both men, on the bright side, serve to allow us to further ourselves in our own introspection and allow us to be more conscious and wary of identity and, perhaps, the power of books. Additionally, Don Quixote warns us of what is likely to happen to those that assume an identity of a knight; the Underground Man, on the other hand, warns us of what it is to be hyperconscious and this hyperconsciousness can be seen as a distinction from Don Quixote’s identity. Don Quixote was able to achieve fame for not caring of what others may think of him and his identity while the Underground Man argues with himself as to what others may think of him. This prevents the Underground Man from achieving much, if anything. Perhaps it is best to situate one’s self somewhere between the two identities. Be not like the Underground Man and you may just achieve something.  

Photo retrieved from: https://blogs.baylor.edu/britlit/files/2015/10/Notes-3-1ocdatq.jpg

On Sex and Gender,

Person 1: The differences between men and women are more than having different reproductive bits and superficial titties/hair. Not only are our brains wired in significantly different ways (see my post above), but there are also important physiological differences that support the traditional roles of the genders. Men, on average, are bigger and have much greater muscle mass, as well as increased lung capacity (and ~20% more red blood cells to carry that extra oxygen), than women (Popenoe, 1971; it's also interesting to note that men have larger brains than women, though what that actually means in the greater scheme of things is unclear). Even anecdotally, ANYONE can look at sports (for example, women's basketball vs. men's) and see why we split the genders up when it comes to competition; women are, on average, NO competition for the average man in a physical match.
My point is that gender is NOT just a social construct as you seem to be suggesting. The traditional gender roles of men and women in the West - that is, to work/provide for the family vs. tend to hearth and home, respectively - are deeply rooted in our physiological differences. When it comes down to it, men are simply going to be better at any physical work (hunting, etc.), while women are more suited toward lighter duty (taking care of kids, etc.). There are certainly many ways in which a culture can influence gender roles, but that fact does not make gender an entirely social construct. Culture is simply a thin veneer over the cold hard facts of biology and the evolutionary advantages that come along with the complimentary strengths of the genders. As Fielder & King (2004) put it, "[...] biology cannot fail to contribute its heritage, subtle or frank, to the form of society and culture." On another note, I think it's a shame that the literature on this topic is riddled with a plethora of social science nonsense (read: gender studies drivel) when evolutionary biology explains it all with scientifically proven facts.

Person 2, I: But, by definition, gender is a social construct.

In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one's gender identity and learned gender role. Sex, on the other hand, refers in this context to the biological aspects of being either female or male. — Wienclaw, Ruth A. 2015 As seen with cultures like the Bugis, there exists non-binary gender categories that are not quite extant in the Western cultures. Biology simply deals with sex; gender is an aspect related to biosocial science or anthropology.

1: I refer you back to my comment. The concept of gender does not exist in a vacuum separate from biology (and sex). It is not entirely a social construct. To make my point even clearer, and quoting you (quoting someone else) "...Gender, in biosocial terms, refers to the psychological, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being sexually male or female..." Those "psychological, cultural, and behavioral characteristics" will always be affected to some extent by the innate hard-wired differences between the sexes, which I have detailed above.

2: Yes, indeed, and I know that; that does not refute gender being a social construct, however. As noted within the Bugis culture, four of the gender categories are relevant to those that are biologically male or female. If a male prefers to be associated with what females tend to do, then they are often categorized as being female in regards to gender and its gender role. There is less of an emphasis on one's biological sex and more so on the gender role. What is it that one's biological sex should do in a culture is determined by its superstructural notions of notions and the ilk. This is how gender and gender roles become subjective, varying in cultures.  

1: Actually, it categorically does refute the idea that gender is a social construct. Like I said, gender does not exist in a vacuum. I'll say it again; gender is a concept that has been and continues to be subject to the biological differences between men and women.

It's nice that the Burgis people decided to include transsexual as a gender. But even in Burgis culture, those who identify as a gender that is not consistent with their biological sex are are considered exactly that; someone who is one sex, but identifies as a gender that is typically associated with the other sex. They are not considered to actually be that gender. For example, a male who identifies with the female role is called Calabai, or a 'false woman.' They may adopt the trappings of a woman, but they are still not considered women. The weird exception to this - the fifth gender - that you have brought up is essentially a transcendent gender created for hermaphrodites. So, as you can see, the Burgis concept of gender is strongly influenced by biological sex. Even in the case of this extreme outlier, the concept of gender is subject to biology.

2: Like I said, gender does not exist in a vacuum.

And I'm not saying it does. I'll say it again; gender is a concept that has been and continues to be subject to the biological differences between men and women. You are referring to sex which is biogenetically determined and is the cause of the differentiation between the sexes. Gender, as defined previously, relates to the superstructural notions of what it is to be biologically male or female and the roles that a sex may partake in. Does the female take care of the home, able to work certain jobs, and the ilk. One's culture determines what the sexes are able to due without formal or informal sanction. In short, biology deals with sex; culture deals with what the sexes may do in a society.  It's nice that the Burgis people decided to include transsexual as a gender. They don't really. One of the five categorizations of gender includes the Bissu which is one that is born hermaphroditic. One can not voluntarily be one of them. "Transgender", as in, say, masculine female, is a distinction made within their culture, however, as they are referred to as calalai. Biologically female, but takes the role of the male, culturally. They are able to be blacksmiths, to smoke, and so on which is not permitted for those in the feminine female category of gender and are able to walk out at night without a male companion—something Muslim societies tend not to allow.  They are not considered to actually be that gender. But they are. They may adopt the trappings of a woman, but they are still not considered women. Aye, indeed, they are not considered biologically female.  So, as you can see, the Burgis concept of gender is strongly influenced by biological sex. Even in the case of this extreme outlier, the concept of gender is subject to biology. I have yet to say it is to the contrary. We do, however, seem to hold a different definition of gender and sex, however. My main argument is that gender is cultural and sex is biological simply due to definition.  Again, according to Wienclaw, _in biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one's gender identity and learned gender role. Sex, on the other hand, refers in this context to the biological aspects of being either female or male._  More by Wienclaw—forgive the copy and paste: It is relatively easy to see that biology has an impact on gender and the subsequent actions and behaviors that are thought to be more relevant to either females or males. For example, no matter how much a man might want to experience giving birth, the simple fact is that he cannot, except as an observer. From this fact it is easy (if not necessarily logical) to assume that biology is destiny and, therefore, women and men have certain unalterable roles in society—for example, that women are the keepers of home and hearth because of their reproductive role, while men are the protectors and providers because of their relatively greater size and strength. However, before concluding that biology is destiny in terms of gender roles, it is important to understand that not only do gender roles differ from culture to culture, they also change over time within the same culture. Early 20th-century American culture emphasized that a woman's role was in the home. As a result, many women did not have high school educations and never held jobs; instead, they quite happily raised families and supported their husbands by keeping their households running smoothly. Nearly a century later, this gender role is no longer the norm (or at least not the only acceptable norm) and sounds quite constricting to our more educated, career-oriented 21st-century ears. If biology were the sole determinant of gender roles, such changes would not be possible. As observed among people of varying cultures, biology solely does not determine the role of an individual, especially when anomalies of those that are much more inclined to be associated and perceived as the other sex or gender role. Within Somoa, there exists something similar to that of the two-spirited people of the various Native American tribes in North America, the fa'afafine. These fa'afafine are males that are sexually attracted to males. By the West, they may be classified as androphillic males. The term fa'afafine can be translated literally as "in the manner of a woman." (Vasey). The fa'afafine seem to essentially be females in the body of males as they portray feminine appearances, mannerisms, and behaviors. Again, from the perspective of the West, these males can be seen as effeminate males or transgendered. To describe them as transsexual would be erroneous because these fa'afafine do not experience any dysphoria towards their male genitals—some of which state that they do not want to have female genitals (Vasey). Furthermore, it would again be erroneous to perceive these fa'afafine as being homosexual or gay as they do not identify as males or want to be masculine in appearance. 

1: You're talking in circles. If the concept of gender is informed by biological sex, and thus the innate differences between males vs. females, then it is not just a social construct.

You are referring to sex which is biogenetically determined and is the cause of the differentiation between the sexes.  No, I'm not. Even in the Burgis culture, where a man can do women's work if he wishes, he is still not considered to be a woman. The fact that he is not actually considered to be a woman means that his ‘gender’ is still determined by his sex. The social concept of these transsexual genders in Burgis culture (the so called 'false woman' and 'false man') is rooted in biological sex - e.g., a biological male cannot be the 'false man' gender no matter how much he wants to be. They don't really. One of the five categorizations of gender includes the Bissu which is one that is born hermaphroditic.  You write this like I didn't mention it in my previous comment. I did. A hermaphrodite is in a biologically grey area. Therefore, their cultural identity will be in a grey area. This fifth gender is an expression of that concept. And it is still rooted in biological sex, since hermaphrodites are both male and female. See my previous paragraph for the rest of your remarks here. I have yet to say it is to the contrary. We do, however, seem to hold a different definition of gender and sex, however.  Holding to the definition of gender given in your previous comment, you have yet to bring up any examples that suggest a person in any culture can have a gender that is not informed by their biological sex. No, not even the Samoa and North American examples fit the bill.

Gender is not a nebulous concept that people of any culture have made up out of thin air. It is also not, as I have shown, arbitrarily assignable based entirely on an individual’s desire to be a gender that is not typically associated with their biological sex.

And since I know you're going to try to say it again, no, a transsexual in the Burgis culture is not considered to be the same 'gender' as their women or men. That is why they have two additional 'genders' for transsexuals.

2:  You're talking in circles. If the concept of gender is informed by biological sex, and thus the innate differences between males vs. females, then it is not just a social construct.

Gender is not totally informed by biological sex though. Yes, there are innate differences but those differences do not prevent, say, a male being, say, basket-weaving, which is generally a feminine gender role in some cultures. A male may not give birth but this does not prevent a male from taking care of the young. Whether or not the male is to do such things is determined by culture.  No, I'm not. Even in the Burgis culture, where a man can do women's work if he wishes, he is still not considered to be a woman. But they are. They are not considered biologically woman, no, they are considered and treated as a woman though.  Example:  As noted by Inside Indonesia, Rani is anatomically female but is a calalai, married to a female, smokes cigarettes, works along with men as a blacksmith, and walks alone at night—things that are not to be done by feminine females (Graham, 2011). Again, though Rani is very much like a male, she does not wish to alter her—or his—sex and is thusly not transsexual but, rather, transgender from the Western perspective.  The social concept of these transsexual genders in Burgis culture (the so called 'false woman' and 'false man') is rooted in biological sex - e.g., a biological male cannot be the 'false man' gender no matter how much he wants to. There is not really a transsexual concept in this culture. I haven't come across an example of someone changing sex in the culture. There isn't quite an example of transgendering as gender roles and categories are firmly embedded in the culture. A male may be feminine and self-identify as a female and will be identified as such. The act of transgendering is only quite distinguishable in a culture like that of the West wherein two genders are the norm. If a male acts much like a female and self-identifies as one, then that male is considered transgendered as there there is not a prominent category or title for these transgendered males unlike in the Bugis culture.  So, to correct,  a biological male cannot be the 'false man' gender no matter how much he wants to A biological male cannot be biologically female, no matter how much he wants to. He can, however, be feminine or female in a psycho-sociocultural context and partake in the feminine gender role (e.g., weaving, caring for the young, etc.).  Again, sex is biological; gender is cultural. Gender roles are separate patterns of personality traits, mannerisms, interests, attitudes, and behaviors that are regarded as either "male" or "female" by one's culture (Wienclaw 2015). One who partakes in a gender role is of that gender, in a sense, and not of that sex, lest one be transsexual, perhaps.  Holding to the definition of gender given in your previous comment, you have yet to bring up any examples that suggest a person in any culture can have a gender that is not informed by their biological sex. No, not even the Samoa and North American examples fit the bill. There is no need for such an example. One's biogenetics influences one's cultural identity. As noted through observation, males can be born much more feminine than some females. This is a result of one's (bio-)genetics. The false women in the Bugis tend to look or act feminine, naturally. So, as a culture, they decided to have categories for those that act and look like the other sex.  Example from Wienclaw's paper: There has been ongoing debate for years regarding whether gender roles are a biological imperative or the result of socialization. As the example of the Tchambuli gender roles demonstrates, it is difficult if not impossible to argue that gender roles are completely biologically determined. However, this is not to say that there is not a biological component in their acquisition. Research suggests, for example, that the exposure of female fetuses to androgens (male hormones) during the second trimester results in individuals more likely to break out of traditional female gender stereotypes (Udry, 2000). Mitchell, Baker, and Jacklin (1989) performed a twin study with pre-adolescents and adolescents to attempt to determine the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors in the development of femininity and masculinity in children. The sample included both monozygotic pairs of twins (identical twins with the same genetic background) and dizygotic pairs of twins (fraternal twins with similar genetic backgrounds). Data on femininity and masculinity were collected by asking subjects to respond to two standardized instruments of personality and self-perception. The analysis of the data suggested that both heredity and environment are important in the development of gender identity. Genetics was found to play a significant role in the acquisition of gender identity, accounting for 20 to 48 percent of the observed variation, and so was environmental influences, which accounted for the remaining 52 to 80 percent of the variation. So, yes, biogenetics do influence one's gender and gender role in society. In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one's gender identity and learned gender role. By definition, gender is cultural and sex is biological. Biology influences but does not determine one's gender role. If biology were the sole determinant of gender roles, then gender roles would never have changed throughout history and culture but this is not so and changes would not be possible if it were so.  Gender is not a nebulous concept that people of any culture have made up out of thin air. It is also not, as I have shown, arbitrarily assignable based entirely on an individual’s desire to be a gender that is not typically associated with their biological sex. It somewhat is. Like time, itself, it is not self-evident and a concept created to create some semblance of understanding or order. Sex is self-evident and often, with ease, observable. Genitalia and physical characteristics aside, sex is less self-evident and gender is a concept used to describe or identify an individual. The concept of gender emphasizes mannerisms and psychology, both rooted in biology, yes.  Another example, In 21st-century United States culture, gender roles continue to be in a state of flux to some extent, although traditional gender roles still apply in many quarters. For example, boys are often encouraged to become strong, fast, aggressive, dominant, and achieving, while traditional roles for girls are to be sensitive, intuitive, passive, emotional, and interested in the things of home and family. However, these gender roles are culturally bound. For example, in the Tchambuli culture of New Guinea, gender roles for women include doing the fishing and manufacturing as well as controlling the power and economic life of the community. Tchambuli women also take the lead in initiating sexual relations. Tchambuli men, on the other hand, are dependent, flirtatious, and concerned with their appearance, often adorning themselves with flowers and jewelry. In the Tchambuli culture, men's interests revolve around such activities as art, games, and theatrics (Coon, 2001). If gender roles were completely biologically determined, the wide disparity between American and Tchambuli gender roles would not be possible. Therefore, it must be assumed that culture and socialization also play a part in gender role acquisition (Wienclaw 2015). Oddly, to note, biology and anthropology are my areas of study in university. Anthropology is the result of biology; anthropology would not be possible without a biological basis.  Biology deals less with "concepts" and more with facts while anthropology does, usually, the opposite. Chromosomal theory of inheritance is, well, fact. What individuals do in a society varies among cultures. Concepts like democracy are abstract and not exactly naturally occurring without agents like the Homo sapien. This is similar to that of the concept of gender. Gender roles are held by cultures and they determine what those roles are and whether or not to acknowledge a concept of gender that is not binary like it is in the West. Gender and its concept is never the same among various peoples and cultures while sex is. And since I know you're going to try to say it again, no, a transsexual in the Burgis culture is not considered to be the same 'gender' as their women or men. That is why they have two additional 'genders' for transsexuals. I don't even know if transsexuals exist in that culture, to be honest. Or, Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, whilegender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society.Sex refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine. The differences in the sexes do not vary throughout the world, but differences in gender do. — http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

Nick, after reading this exchange states: I think there was a lot of time lost by getting hung up on whether or not the fact that the genders have mean differences in some psychological and behavioral variables disproves the idea that gender is a social construct. Tabini was wrong -- in fact, the very existence of these mean differences is how we know gender is socially constructed.

The idea is this: we assign certain expectations and profiles to certain sexes based solely on their sexual identity. This is their gender profile. We automatically assume a woman is incapable of dealing with the rigorous training necessary to become a football player because biologically, females on average have about 20% less muscle mass than males. This is a biological difference. But not every single female is going to have 20% less muscle mass than any given male. There are many females who are stronger than many males. Thus the expectation that the woman is weaker than the man is breached. The female's gender profile -- being weaker -- was socially constructed based on a biological difference. Here, we can see that the most potent example of gender construction is when such expectations are violated. We will call a woman "manly" if she is tall, muscular, and even hairy, because we expect that women -- based in part on their biology -- are going to be shorter, less muscular, and have less hair or are even completely clean shaven from the face down. That's because we associate those traits with being a man. So her gender assignment slowly shifts away from being a woman the more times she violates what it "means" to be a woman. It's hard to deny this phenomenon, and I think you would've had an easier time had you gone this route.

[Addendums will probably be added]

Art: Pallas Athene and Mercury,

On Bestiality,

Person 1: I have a request for a poll for you.

Person 2: Good.

Person 1: "Is bestiality wrong?" I suspect that all your vegetarian/vegan followers will answer undoubtedly "yes," but for those meat-eating followers, I want to know why they think it's a moral wrong.

2: (laughs) Didn't expect that. I will do that.

1: Hehehe, do you see where I'm going with this?

2: N-not really,

1: Well, what's the first argument you can come up with for why bestiality is wrong?

2: No consent?

1: Does that make eating animals morally wrong as well? They don't consent to it, I presume.

2: (laughs) You're an evil bastard.

1: (laughs) I'm actually asking it for an honest purpose. I want to know how people rationalize it. I have my answer, and it satisfies me, but I would seldom suspect most people would be satisfied with it. So I want to see the variety and see if your more intelligent followers can come up with something better.

2: Fair enough and I'm curious too. Did this idea come to you after that one person criticized your fish eating?

1: It came from a picture I saw labelled "Respect" and it had 5 images:

A man and a man

A man and a baby

A woman and a woman

A man and a dog

A man and a woman

I could come up with logical consistencies to every single one except bestiality.

2: What an odd thing. I don't think I could come up with a logical consistency either. 

1: At least for a man and a baby, it isn't so much an issue of the child's consent. We don't care about children's consent. We do things without their consent all the time. The real issue is that we have allowed society to assume the role as the protectorate of the youth; whether they like it or not, we are here to do what we think is best for them. Guarding against the potential threat of sex not consented is among those.

That's logically consistent, then, to ban statutory rape. But there is no logical reason to ban bestiality, and I suppose that's why there are many states that don't.

2: Oddly so... I'm going to have to keep this in mind. Bestiality is a bit of an anomaly and humans are not quite harmed because of it, so I suppose the government has little to no reason to say that bestiality is illegal.  

1: Wanna know my answer? Or would you rather the discussion flesh out freely. 

2: Flesh out freely, more fun that way.

1: Good.

2: Already, for some reason, I don't really have a problem with bestiality. Horses do have nice behinds. 

1: It really is an interesting question. And it's nice to force people to think with their brains and not their hearts.

Although, in this case, one may not necessarily be better than the other. And yeah that picture of that squid making out with that Chinese lady got me horny. And it wasn't the lady.

2: Eww, man. Not the octopi. You're killing me. You're right though. Immediately, I can't state whether the brain or heart is better. As you said, animals do not consent to being food but they do not quite consent to sex either. We get in a weird situation. "You can kill animals for food but you can't have sex with them". Sounds kind of weird aloud. May as well have access to all of the body or none of it at all, methinks. Can't wait to irk my mom with this topic.

1: Oh, don't go asking your mom. That's just wrong.

2:  It's dinner talk. A lovely one too.

1: Ew, I have enough respect for my mother not to bring up that sort of thing, especially at the dinner table.

2: Ooh, snap. You have some sort of decency, eh? 

1: Well yeah, I was raised well. Hm.. it's actually irking me not to point out what my view is. So let me ask this to provoke you further:

It's wrong to eat a cow for meat.

Is it wrong to eat your pet cow?

And is it wrong to have sex with a farm cow?

Let's swap the roles... see what we get.

2: Wait, so the cow switches role with the human? 

I'd suppose it would be alright, given that humans are unable to run away from the cow.

1: Well if the cow prefers to be on top.

2: Ooh, well, I have seen horses penetrate humans so... I suppose it's alright. 

1:  This is so ridiculous.

2: It literally is but it's interesting. So, I can see how male animals may portray some sort of consent or inclination for sex but can female animals, like cows, do the same? 

1: Surely. They can back into you. Or they can do the shaky dance. For example, my dove did that within the first week of my owning her. She did the shaky on my finger to stimulate herself. 

2: W-what. Well then. I forgot that doves can be kinky.

(blah blah)

1: I don't think it's terribly important whether or not there's logical consistency. Like eating animals, we've decided some animals are okay for eating while others aren't. It's a decision that society has made at large with no true grounding in objectivity. Thus it's a moral wrong to fuck a dog because we say it is. And that may change in the future, but as we stand today, I think personally that it's a moral wrong because that's what my heart says. And I don't think there's anything quite wrong with that. As a friend of mine put it when I prompted him with this:

"Whether or not it's logically consistent isn't an issue. We all have moral predilections and to abandon that sense of moral sanctity and to allow us to give away to whatever pleases us, regardless of our souls' suggestion, is to erase the line between man and savage."

2: Oy vey, that's seemingly a professional quote. He and you sound much like how an Anthropologist would answer in the question. Logical consistency aside, it is up to the culture's notion of what is right or wrong. Fair enough.

1:  Ironically he's a very conservative person. And I think that shows here. We say, therefore it is.

Not all morals are rooted in objectivity. In fact, very few are.

2: Quite so. After studying cultures, morality is, of course, generally subjective/relative. 

1: It's awesome to see how people react, though, when you remind them of that. Most atheists already understand that their own sense of morals is not rooted in objectivity, but in personal feelings and empathy. But sometimes they forget how far reaching that applies.

2: Yea, very much so. 

Addendum,
On the poll "Is Bestiality morally wrong?", the most liked and used reason for it being morally wrong was stated like "because animals cannot consent." Unfortunately, this reasoning is not consistent to those who who claim that the killing and consuming of animals is not morally wrong. In both cases, the animal does not consent—albeit, animals can arguable consent to sex or attempt to perform sexual acts on, say, humans as noted above. It is because of this, one can argue it is that culture is left to determine whether or not it is morally wrong or right for a human to have sexual intercourse with another animal. 

Art: An elder Plato walks alongside Aristotle.

On Antinatalism

Person 1: Wondering your thoughts on antinatalism.

Person 2: I mean, it sounds nice to me.

Person 1: Why?

2: Well, I, for one, do not like life too much.  “To Never Have been born may be the greatest boon of all”

1: But do you believe it's a universally moral wrong to give birth to children?

2: Bah, not really but I could defend such a position. I could see why some would believe so, but I probably would not see it as a moral wrong. 

1: The reason I'm asking is because the only time I've ever said "I'm anti-life" was in a joke. I didn't realize it was a genuine philosophical position that people defend as their life's work. So I'm looking for people who either are antinatalists or who appreciate the position and asking for their defenses, because thus far I've only heard bad arguments and "this is our only option" sorts of deals.

2: Yeah, i haven't come across a living antinatalist. I doubt you'll be finding any soon either. For me, I would argue for antinatalism because it would lead to the absence of pain and suffering. To give birth would only perpetuate suffering, for the offspring is now vulnerable to suffering. 

1: But it would also lead to the absence of enjoyment, or just being, or even the opportunity for enjoyment. Is it safe to assume that life's suffering will always outweigh its benefits?

2: I would state, "not always." I would also agree with Benatar.

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation1: [laugh] it's like you're reading the Wikipedia to me.

2: Well, yeah.

1: But Benatar would be a person to argue that it is a universal wrong.

2: True true, but for the sake of argument, let's say I do agree with him.

1: Okay, in that scenario, on what grounds do you say that the absence of pleasure isn't bad? At least in the context of a human life.

2: Well, it's not quite good or bad. Life for one that suffers from persistent depression, for example, I suppose.

1: Isn't depression bad, though? I'm not following. There's a reason we class it as a debilitating mental illness.

2: Ah, well. I guess it is bad. I'm not quite sure if I know of a context in human life then.

1: Well what I was asking was this: specifically in the context of life as a whole, how can you say that the absence of pleasure is neither good nor bad? Because for example, I can say that in any given day, I wouldn't say that I had a bad day just because I didn't do anything fun. It'd be "alright" or something. But for someone's entire life, in terms of fulfillment and long term ideals, is the absence of any pleasure really not a bad thing? Just to be clear, I'd argue that in that sense, the absence of pleasure is bad. I'd never, ever want to live a life void of pleasure. That would be unfulfilling and pointless.

2:  I'm not quite sure if I could state whether or not the absence of pleasure is good or bad. Though, for someone to live a life devoid of some pleasure seems impossible or unlikely.  Perhaps one would argue that one would never ever want to live in a world that harbors pain. 

1: Well you did say you agreed with Benatar for all intents and purposes, so I'm assuming that you're agreeing with his 4th premise that the absence of pleasure is not bad unless it deprives someone. While it's impossible or unlikely to live a life devoid of pleasure, I'd change it to more general terms: a life that has not had a satisfactory amount of pleasure; so little that someone says "my life is boring." Or "my life is unpleasant."

(Noting of course that the word unpleasant, by connotation, is bad in most contexts). And lastly, of course nobody would want to, but would they settle to live in a world where pain and suffering exists rather than to never have been born? Perhaps live to change it?

2: Well, one that lives a life and states, "my life is unpleasant", then the burden of life outweighs pleasure. To avoid such a life, one ought not to be born. It's better to be in the absence of pain than the experience of pleasure. Some, sure, may want to be born into suffering in an effort to amplify the amount of pleasure and lessen the pain. Some would not.  To have neither have suffered and to not have experienced pleasure is to be in a neutral state. The living one will experience ups and downs. In accordance to Benatar, no pain is greater than the experience of pleasure. Perhaps it is because pain is avoidable by not living.

1: I'd argue that the absence of pain is not better than the experience of pleasure, again from experience living.

Thinking in that manner, a person who had the "unfortunate" experience of being born as two options (other than suicide): 1: To put the most effort into life to minimize the amount of suffering they experience. or 2: To put the most effort into life to maximize the pleasure they experience. Who can honestly say that the vast majority of living people settle for #1? No, most people actively pursue things to make them happy, not just to be rid of suffering. Although they'd probably settle for a life absent of suffering, if they were given a choice between "total absence of suffering as well as pleasure" and "presence of suffering but also presence of pleasure," I would wager most people would pick the latter. I know I would.

2:  Understandable and I don't think I can rebut. From my perspective, however, I would choose the former, the total absence of pleasure and suffering—but, hey, I have depression. 

1: Well at least there's common ground: it's relative, what people would choose. For someone who has more suffering than pleasure, they'd just give anything to take it away. For someone who has a balance of both, they'd do anything to get more pleasure. But that relies on lived experiences. What's the default for a potential future person?

2: Quite true. That was one reason as to why I could not believe that giving birth was a universal moral wrong. Some things are relative. The default for the potential person may be dependent on the mother. Life can get better for some and there is the potential for pleasure. The mother most likely gives birth to the potential in hopes of a better or equivalent life to hers. I think some mothers are reluctant to give birth when in abysmal situations. In some stories pregnancies end in abortion because it would lead to a more unpleasant life for either or both lives.  From the perspective of the unborn, well, that would be interesting.

1: The last part is what I mean, what would the unborn say if they could say it. And here's a better question: is it bad to say "this is all relative and the antinatalist/natalist war is just a battle of opinions"?

2: Well, all would be conjecture if we were to guess the opinion of the unborn. If the unborn was able to know of what life it was to have and be able to tell us, I would assume that its statement would depend on the life the unborn would be born into. Those with a sufficient life would like to be born. Is it bad? I'd say not. It is a bit of a battle of opinions. It is all relative. 

1: Hm, that answer doesn't really satisfy me, if only because I don't believe that so many people could dedicate themselves to a philosophy that really just comes down to a matter of opinion, and not of any kind of solid foundation. Heh, come to think of it, a lot of people do that, don't they?

2: Yeah, not very satisfying indeed. And yeah, it does seem like a lot of people do that. A solid foundation may be wanted for but one rarely is obtained. We should do this more often.

1: I wish I could, but I've become too salty too fast. Most philosophy that people talk about nowadays is boring and stupid. Examples of which would be nihilism, antinatalism, solipsism, etc.

2: Don't get me started with solipsism. Nihilism and solipsism are too popular; I haven't seen too much antinatalism. And you're probably salty due to your fishing hobby.

1: Hah! One thing I don't get about antinatalists is that they don't seem to advocate murder or suicide. Like they don't actively tell natalists to kill themselves, and they don't try to kill off large amounts of people if given the opportunity. Wouldn't the views of antinatalism necessarily entail that you do as much as you can to reduce the number of potential people from coming into the world to experience suffering?

2: That would be too much work and entail too much suffering, I'd suppose. Instead, they just seem to advocate not giving birth. The living, well, they are already here and they/we may as well do something with this life.

1: But what about the risk they pose: they could produce more people to suffer. One healthy woman can produce a dozen kids if she wants, or on average about 2. Wouldn't killing her and causing her suffering be good because it ends the potential suffering of 2 more people, and also ends her suffering?

2: A movement of thought would not survive too long if that is what they would do. By definition, the antinatalist is anti-birth and not anti-life, in a sense. They do not want to end a life that is already living but, rather, end a life from becoming. 

1: So, hypothetical scenario, there are 51% antinatalists and 49% natalists on the planet. The 51% are armed, and all things equal, they could kill the rest of humanity if they so chose, and then kill themselves. Would they do it?

2: Perhaps some would argue so. But, then again, that would entail a lot of further suffering and unpleasentness. Instead, those 51% would not give birth and the natalists would then continue living. 

1: So how exactly do they plan on winning? If they're willing to prolong generations upon generations of suffering because they don't want to actively just end it all in a matter of a few years, what exactly do they think they can do? Just convince people not to have children? Doesn't not having children prolong their own suffering, since many people rely on the next generation to take care of them?

2: Yea, just convince others to not have children. One would think they do not need another child to take care of them. Or, perhaps, the antinatalist is just a holier-than-thou and laughs at the amoral peoples. 

1: Pfft, I think it's pretty ubiquitous or societies to understand that they need a new generation to take care of the old. Imagine the suffering that would ensue for our older generation in America if they couldn't get disability/social security/retirement because no new generations are paying taxes.

2: If it results in no one continuing to give birth, then perhaps such is worth it, to not have children and suffer before death. A lot of suffering would happen if the older generation could not get disability/social security/ retirement.  So, I suppose they would justify it.

1: But then it becomes a question of "at what point can you cause suffering to end suffering" and it begs the question: if you're willing to let millions of people suffer from a lack of resources by allowing the younger population to never exist, why wouldn't you just kill them instead? It'd be quicker and would involve less suffering.

2: To know, I think we would have to ask a real antinatalist. I can not quite conceive an answer.  The suffering of the millions from not giving birth is due to one's choice. So, it can be seen as a long and drawn out suicide instead of mass murder. 

1: At which point, they'd be conceding that they value freedom of choice; and at that point I'd challenge them on imposing their view of life's worth on people who have not had the opportunity to choose whether life or death is better for themselves.

2: The opinion of the unborn is not in the antinatalist's equation, I suppose.  Life is full of suffering, so do not let one be born. "We're doing them a favor"

1: But are they? It would be the potential future person's free will to decide whether or not it's really better to not live than to live.

2: True, but disregard that. They are not living yet.

1: So because they can't express their opinion, we can decide it for them? On that same note, I can easily say that my opinion is that their life will be full of pleasure, and so it is on their behalf that I'm bringing them into the world: so they can experience that. And that they will enjoy that decision having been made.

2: And it would seem we went full circle. Here, our difference of opinion is apparent. For the antinatalist, absence of pleasure and pain is best. Somewhat like an optimist vs pessimist looking at a half-glass of water.

1: Well when you put it like that, "This is stupid."

2: [laugh] Yes. To our benefit, antinatalism is not too popular.

1: Yeah,

Art: John Maler Collier (1850 - 1934) of the Priestess of Delphi (1891).