Kaitlyn

I see myself as having two aspects: a conscious self and a physiological self, and I believe that free will is being able to overcome the physiological self with the conscious self.

I don't believe in spiritual or supernatural things, so the concept of mind-body duality isn't a valid conception to me. In other words, the mind (brain) and body are both physical objects, not meta-physical in any way. Your thoughts are physical phenomena that are an amalgamation of the physiological and conscious self, and thus create one singular will, even if they can be competing forces.

I regard the conscious self as a metaphysical concept derived from the physical self, and the physiological self as a physical result of natural evolution. I believe that free will comes in different levels, and that it can be increased or decreased by various things, such as obstacles or genes. I acknowledge happiness as the thing individuals strive for and that by having your will selected for you, you can obtain your goals and desires easier and therefore will be happier. Although, I am not implying free will is a negative or positive, but rather I'm addressing the positive and negative aspects of each.

I don't think there is any metaphysical world beyond the physical world, so this argument has a premise that is unacceptable to me.

I apologize for lacking clarity on my explanation. I'm non-religious and a naturalist, believing solely in matter and energy, while remaining open to the possibility of discovering more in the future. When I refer to the conscious self, I see it as a metaphysical projection of the physical body—a concept or projection that emphasizes concern for the future rather than the present self. I don't consider it independent of current scientific understanding in physics.

Similar to a strategy or concept that lacks physical existence but is still considered real, I believe the concept of the conscious mind is real without requiring a physical form. I do not view this as supernatural, as something that can be real even without physical existence. This is evident to me because humans can conceive an idea or concept before it exists in the world. I think that even concepts and ideas have a physical presence within the electronic pulses of the mind, but for all intents and purposes, it is a non-existing form.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I don't think free will necessarily has to have the ability to do your will, but rather you have the option to choose to attempt to carry out your will. For example, with harder tasks like becoming a professional sportsperson, choosing to follow that career path doesn't always end up with your being a sportsperson, but you had the free will to attempt it, therefore you had free will.

Having the ability to enact your will won't always lead to you enacting your will.  In your example, they both had the option to choose, so I think it follows that they both have free will. Sure, one person didn't end up engaging in their will, but they had the freedom to follow it if they wanted. Therefore, I think a working, consistent definition of free will involves a binary have or have not determination, rather than degrees of free will. 

If free will is only the mental ability to pursue one’s will, and physical constraints are not limitations of will, then is genetic design not a limitation of will but rather a physical constraint? - Given your definition

Genetic design should limit your ability to will for certain things, so genetic design is a limitation on Free Will -- it's preventing you from having options. This is different from having the physical inability to enact your will -- you still had the option to will it.

For example, you might be genetically predisposed to conservative ideas, and your genetic tendency to conservatism would be so strong that it's impossible for you to want Anarcho-capitalism. Therefore, genetic design was a limitation on Free Will.

I see how you draw the distinction between physical inability and mental inability, though I think that individuals who aren't genetically designed are still mentally constrained by their genetic makeup and environment that has shaped them into who they are.

In essence, genetically designed people would have determined and confined will, while natural born people have undetermined and confined will. For example, a person doesn't just want what they want, rather they want what they biologically desire or have been shaped to desire by their environment and culture through indoctrination. It's just a different kind of constraint.

I would like to point out I have opened up a lot in this discussion and exposed myself to much new information, and as a result I have had several inconsistencies within my responses (Though the definitions and citations I provided I still stand by). Forgive me for any confusion as I work through figuring out my new understanding or decisions of what I choose. In essence, I'm no longer sure what I believe, but I am working through it.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered. 

You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.

In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.

In essence, my understanding is that no one has completely Free Will, but that there are various levels. I'm not sure if Free Will is a positive aspect of humanity either, considering how unified and crime free both Ant colonies and Beehives are.

I'm still not convinced this multi-level conception of Free Will is correct. I don't think we say that a basketball player has less Free Will because they missed a shot, whereas someone else who made it has more.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about Free Will, but it appears binary and independent of ability level or results (of which are real things but not determiners of Free Will). 

I explained in comment #217 that I am new to the idea that there are different definitions of what constitutes free will. Moreover, being new to the idea I have not selected which one I believe yet, but I look forward to it. Therefore, I cannot answer whether a basketball player has less Free Will because they missed a shot as of yet. Though personally, I would agree with you.

Based on what you're saying here, would you go so far as to say it can't be recessive?

Um, let me try to phrase it better:

Note that when I say 'the' allele it is only in the abstract since having functionality spread out across multiple genes is one of the ways things become complicated (and thus non-deterministic).

I am saying that the allele(s) involved (if any) are so non-deterministic that it wouldn't matter if they were dominant or recessive because they wouldn't predict much of anything.

A recessive trait following Mendelian inheritance would be something we couldn't possibly miss. As has been already posted in this thread twin studies prove it.

Now a recessive trait would serve to make sure there were never too many deviants in the analysis of general benefit, but that would be a factor multiplied by the  factor that not everyone with the genes are going to become deviants.

Is that clear? It could be recessive or it could be dominant, or neither (that's a thing) and that's something we wouldn't be able to determine until we've identified the genes. We can't do that until we know what the trigger is.

What we can rule out is that there is an allele (even if recessive) that when expressed causes you to be a sexual deviant. The uncertainty is not modeled by recessive vs dominant.

It's very possible that the genetic component is super generic, related to a bunch of stuff, and is indeed much like a gene that makes one like motorcycles. In that case though the complicated part is neurological or biochemical. Which means we're not going to figure it out any time soon; yet I am certain one day we will have a very good understanding of neurology and how the brain actually works.

It's just a slog of research about a phenomenon occurring before our eyes constantly. It's not like faster than light travel or hyper dimensional speculation.

Perhaps, as some others are saying in this thread, it is epigenetic and only expresses under certain environments (maybe only in advantageous environments). That could be a way for this gene to avoid extinction.

But that would raise another big question: are there environments wherein homosexuality is advantageous?

Epigenetics can't be ruled out, but it's not a magic word to me; it's just one category of control system; the vast majority of which are utterly subconscious.

For example if I speculated that there was a biochemical reaction (pure hormone/pheromone communication and protein reaction) due to the environment that caused your brain to go deviant and stay that way would it really have any meaningful difference from an explanation involving epigenetics?

In reality all these different systems interact with each other constantly. Any given function could rely on altering gene expression, protein domino logic, ion gradient changes, neuron signals, protein-like-RNA unfolding a bit, etc... etc... all at once (in different parts of the process).

All we can do right now is bracket what is possible by ruling out a few possibilities based on what we don't observe and what natural selection would allow.

I already gave my retelling of oromagi's theory of increased fitness for homosexuality. The environment where that would be considered more useful would be somewhere children are at risk and require a lot of help from adults; but not an environment with limited food or water as adults eat and drink a lot.

There is no reason it would need to react to the environment though; it is enough for a trait to be useful at the time to be selected; it doesn't need to detect when it would be useful, although sometimes it can and that kind of usefulness does tend stick around.

If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be changed, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?

Control systems beyond our conscious control. That can be the subconscious (which is probably the answer), or it could be gene switching (expressed proteins can change even with identical DNA), or it could be a pure chemical equilibrium of some complexity.

I thought the subconscious was determined by genetics, too, hence the variations in it.

Everything ultimately arises from genetics, but people mean something specific (or should) when they say "it's genetic". They mean you can map someone's genome and make a prediction.

I think it was TWS who used "green eyes" as his example of this. Now the fact that I am typing in English is certainly something made possible ultimately by my genes. My genes built the cells and proteins of my brain. My genes determined the patterns by which neurons link; but knowing English is not genetic.

Capacity for diversity vs predestination.

What exactly is a "pure chemical equilibrium" of some complexity? I've never heard of that term before.

Well I was just covering all the bases. I don't know enough biology to know any examples off the top of my head. From an evolutionary standpoint they would certainly have been prevalent near the start of every new biochemical pathway; but probably just as certainly they would eventually be augmented by active control via in-situ proteins, epigenetics, etc...

Take ion (like sodium or hydroxide) flow through pores in a cell membrane for example. I think there are examples of both active and passive control. In passive control the proteins of the pore itself interact with differing concentrations on either side and that closes or opens the pore. There is no signalling, no waiting for new proteins or hormones to be manufactured. Just chemistry.

I don't know of any examples of life generating its own (pH) buffers, but I would be very surprised if it never happens. In fact I suspect my own blood and cytoplasm are buffers to some degree by design.

The context here is sexual attraction so no matter where the story starts it ends in the brain. A chain reaction of signal chemicals ending in "find men hot" is a bit like a fairy tale and quite inexplicable.  Like I said, covering all the bases.

(1) You don't know this and can't prove it

(2) Your definition of White is horrendous and is non-reality

Someone comes to you and asks, is water okay to drink?

There will be a thought in your head 'no way these morons actually mean such an obvious question, maybe the water is poisoned or has cholera etc.' You will maybe resist that thought and give the obvious answer.

That is what those answering no were answering to.

• Both victims were suspected of misdemeanors
  

running red lights and not (initially) stopping for a traffic stop at high rates of speed ≠ a misdemeanor. 

Especially when you defy orders not to flee again. 

What does being white mean?

Being privileged and engaging in nepotism or what?

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).

I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different.

I also don't know how many transhumanists/post-humanists are merely non-conformists who want to be unique.

I think a good way to test for true believer status is to ask people some non-standard questions that require their own view, rather than regurgitated talking points. If they don't answer the question or can't acknowledge that they haven't thought about it before, then they aren't true believers.

For example, if you ask a transhumanist what humanity would look like 50 years after transhumanist technology were in place, assuming the transhumanist revolution happened today, a true believer is either going to think really hard or they've already thought about it and will give you lengthy answer. Someone not really interested in transhumanism is going to question the validity of the question, give you a terse answer, say something along the lines of 'we'll have to wait and see', or anything else that shows a lack of thought and interest.

I believe the tests you’re describing would not determine whether someone is a true transhumanist or post humanist (I think their dedication is whether they are true). Instead, this would test the person’s level of autonomy and consciousness. Many people who have graduated with a PhD in their desired field may lack critical thinking skills and simply repeat what they’ve been taught without much thought due to their low consciousness and awareness.

I thought I knew what transhumanism and posthumanism were but as our conversation went on, I realized I did not. However, after finding out I still agree with what I have said so far, but I figured I would post the official definitions below, this way we have no miscommunication.

Transhumanism and posthumanism are worldviews or philosophies that look forward to the day when homo sapiens have been replaced by biologically and technologically superior beings. Cited by the following: encyclopedia.com

Transhumanism is "the intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by using technology to eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities". Cited by the following: Britannica

Posthumanism is a transhuman ideology and movement which seeks to develop and make available technologies that enable immortality and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities in order to achieve a "posthuman future". Cited by the following: Wikipedia

Nonetheless, it would be a gamble putting a person who is a nonconformist in charge of a group that is meant to be a conforming new standard. I believe it would be better to put a rationalist and a revolutionist as the leader in fact I believe that all humans have bias because they are in fact existing and in order to evolve and exist from a Darwinist perspective they must have a certain self-interest and therefore any human as the leader of a society or of anything is prone to have self-interest as priority. Therefore, the only thing that can have no self-interest is the thing that does not exist physically that has physical desires, but we would need something that is conscious at the same time. I believe this to be the perfect description of artificial intelligence, it is a thing that does not exist and therefore has no self-interest and is nonetheless conscious and able to think of rational decisions without biases. You may argue that artificial intelligence does have bias and I would agree but I would only agree that it has bias towards the data, and I believe that if the data is based on objective reality that it would only be biased towards the real world and not towards what we consider biases in human existence which is mostly emotionally based.

Yes, this A.I. would be better than any human equivalent. It's just the issue of producing said A.I. and making incorruptible, especially since humans will be the ones creating this A.I.

I am absolutely in agreement; I believe that artificial intelligence would act objectively and without bias, but its goal that it's given to complete could be subjective as it was given from humans which are subjective. Ultimately, the AI would act objectively towards a subjective goal.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I don't think free will necessarily has to have the ability to do your will, but rather you have the option to choose to attempt to carry out your will. For example, with harder tasks like becoming a professional sportsperson, choosing to follow that career path doesn't always end up with your being a sportsperson, but you had the free will to attempt it, therefore you had free will.

Having the ability to enact your will won't always lead to you enacting your will.  In your example, they both had the option to choose, so I think it follows that they both have free will. Sure, one person didn't end up engaging in their will, but they had the freedom to follow it if they wanted. Therefore, I think a working, consistent definition of free will involves a binary have or have not determination, rather than degrees of free will. 

If free will is only the mental ability to pursue one’s will, and physical constraints are not limitations of will, then is genetic design not a limitation of will but rather a physical constraint? - Given your definition

Here is some information I gathered with some research that may help our understanding.

There are many philosophical views of what constitutes free will, but here are some of the most common ones:

Compatibilism: This is the view that free will is compatible with determinism, the thesis that every event is causally inevitable. Compatibilists argue that free will does not require the ability to do otherwise, but rather some other condition, such as acting in accordance with one’s reasons, desires, or values. Compatibilists include philosophers such as David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Harry Frankfurt.

Incompatibilism: This is the view that free will is incompatible with determinism, and thus either free will or determinism must be false. Incompatibilists argue that free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and that this ability is precluded by determinism. Incompatibilists include philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Robert Kane, and Peter van Inwagen.

Libertarianism: This is a form of incompatibilism that affirms both free will and indeterminism, the thesis that some events are not causally inevitable. Libertarians argue that free will requires the existence of alternative possibilities, and that these possibilities are generated by some indeterministic process, such as quantum mechanics or agent causation. Libertarians include philosophers such as Thomas Reid, Roderick Chisholm, and Galen Strawson.

Hard determinism: This is a form of incompatibilism that affirms both determinism and the nonexistence of free will. Hard determinists argue that free will is an illusion or a meaningless concept, and that human actions are fully determined by prior causes. Hard determinists include philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, Paul Holbach, and Ted Honderich.

Skepticism: This is the view that we do not know whether free will exists or not, or whether it is compatible or incompatible with determinism. Skeptics argue that the concept of free will is unclear or ambiguous, and that the arguments for and against it are inconclusive or circular. Skeptics include philosophers such as Pyrrho, Agrippa, and Saul Smilansky.

Cited by the following sources:

1. britannica.com

2. plato.stanford.edu

3. iep.utm.edu

4. psychologytoday.com

5. researchgate.net

6. en.wikipedia.org

Everything below is merely my understanding of how things work and what I have learned over time, and I am open to new possibilities:

I think that free will is the ability to act on your will, no matter what shapes or affects it. I also think that everything is predetermined by prior causes, including my actions and desires.

I see myself as having two aspects: a conscious self and a physiological self, and I believe that free will is being able to overcome the physiological self with the conscious self.

I regard the conscious self as a metaphysical concept derived from the physical self, and the physiological self as a physical result of natural evolution. I believe that free will comes in different levels, and that it can be increased or decreased by various things, such as obstacles or genes. I acknowledge happiness as the thing individuals strive for and that by having your will selected for you, you can obtain your goals and desires easier and therefore will be happier. Although, I am not implying free will is a negative or positive, but rather I'm addressing the positive and negative aspects of each.

Let me give you some examples to illustrate my view:

For example, I want to quit smoking, but I find it very hard to resist the urge to smoke. My conscious self wants to stop smoking for health reasons, but my physiological self wants to keep smoking for pleasure reasons. If I manage to quit smoking by using my conscious self to overcome my physiological self, I have more Free Will than if I fail to quit smoking by succumbing to my physiological self.

Do you know what environmental conditions may trigger homosexuality? 

As I remember, it was thought the environment of womb might play a role. I don't remember specifics at this point.

However, if homosexuals aren't at all attracted to the opposite sex, then there is virtually no chance that in yesteryears they would have had heterosexual sex because they would not have been inclined to do so. 

People have sex with individuals they aren't physically attracted to all the time thanks to things like loneliness and alcohol.

Culture can help too - Patriarchy, arranged marriages, etc. Besides that, it also seems homosexual individuals can be born of perfectly straight parents. 

That being said, it's strange why partial homosexuality exists to any degree. What benefits are there to be found in any degree of homosexuality, or do you suspect it was a coincidental evolutionary adaption?

Ive seen it argued homosexuality might create an excess of caretakers which could be good for ensuring the survival of young and other spreading of labor theories. I'm not sure I buy this, but it is plausible. I would tend to think if homosexuality is passed along by genes, folks with homosexual tendencies are doing enough to pass their genes through the generations. 

How is this even a debate? I am confused.

To be honest I am even falling for it right now because the entire point of right wing memes like this is not to communicate anything but just to get people stuck in endless loops of explaining the most asinine things.

You've gone on at length about how we're unable to read into a simple poll question, and now you've somehow magically read the minds of every right-wing person to determine their implicit, non-stated goal in posting memes.

Do you see the problem with your stance?

[No response from rbelivb]

You're the one saying that White people aren't under attack. I think it's obvious that they are. 

When I say I don't see white people as under attack, of course someone somewhere can be writing against white people.

No, no. It's not just "writing against white people". It's schools being shut down because they're "too white". It's military leadership being criticized for being "too white". It's being banned from a job because you're White.

I don't blame you for not agreeing if you've never seen examples of genuine anti-White sentiment, but seriously just have a look at any of the links in this thread's OP: Anti-white sentiments (debateart.com)  . If you actually have a look, I think you'll be surprised how blatant the anti-White sentiments can be.

[No response from rbelivb]

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

No. Also I don't know what that means.

Lol.

I'll give you specific examples then.

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

[No response]

What are your answers to these questions?

[Still no response from rbelibv]

We both know that there are Black people out there who are racially hateful towards White people. It's not an unreasonable stretch to say that of the 33 Black people who disagreed with the statement, most of them simply hate White people. Most aren't doing mental gymnastics, reading into subtexts or considering the underlying presumptions imbedded within the question. To these Black people, White = bad.

I do not actually know what you mean by "racially hateful" in that context.

We could presume that there are black people expressing in-group bias, for example who would prefer their daughter marries a black man rather than a white man.

However, this is a disposition arising in part from shared history and struggle. As for the statement "It's OK to be white" - it is something that immediately strikes anyone as strange who is not perceiving it from a white nationalist lens. Nobody would ask the question that way, who was not embedded within an oppositional racial majoritarian politics.

You can oppose whatever political movement you think is associated with the phrase, "It's OK to be white," but you're simply anti-White if you disagree with the statement. It's the same for BLM, too. I agree that Black lives matter, but I oppose the political movement associated with it. If I were to disagree with the statement, "Black lives matter," I would rightly be called out for being racially hateful of Black people.

Much like when it comes to the trans issue, the conservative view of semantics seems to cut the meaning of statements off from their context, so that any statement can be evaluated in terms of rigorous definitions and empirical evidence. I do not agree with that positivist view of meaning. Context always has bearing on the meaning of a statement, and the statement divorced from its context becomes an empty abstraction.

What if White people live in a rural town, away from all these anti-White creatures, and they are simply expressing their natural White pride? That's absolutely the case in some of the more remote parts of the USA. That's natural, in-group bias that every race has, and it can come out without any opposition (e.g. BLM).

Why would you celebrate white pride through the statement that it's "OK" to be white? If anything, they should be saying it is great, if they are white supremacists as you claim. However, I believe the more natural form of "white pride" would manifest in flying the American flag, reading Shakespeare, listening to Mozart, and so on. The western tradition is a manifestation of an ethnic heritage, the reduction to biology being a crude caricature of this. The focus on race specifically represents an unnatural cleavage between biology and culture, which has only existed since maybe the 17th century.

There are literal think tanks as well as organized groups of online trolls formulating these memes, planning them to have the maximum social gaslighting effect possible.

You haven't proven any of this.

You can see it for yourself. There is no need for proof.

There are people out there who are racially hateful of White people who see our existence as a problem that needs to be fixed.

This seems to imply that there are widespread calls for some kind of extermination or ethnic cleaning against white people, which is highly dubious.

However, I would also distinguish between the claim that white people are problematic or should be abolished, versus the claim that "whiteness" (or something like that) is problematic as a kind of subsisting separate culture. If white people breed with other cultures and races, this could be seen (esp. by white nationalists) as an "extermination" or abolition of the group. That is a complicated distinction because a term like "genocide" carries both connotations.

Also, if White people were oppressed by anti-White hatred, would it be reasonable to you if they unified in fighting it, hence developing a "white interest" or "white self-defense?"

They are not unified in that because their roles in society are not determined by that relationship.

The dynamics of that are inherently different because of the social position of that ethnic group.

(1) It balkanizes communities by dramatically lowering trust, charity and basically forcing people to self-segregate along racial/cultural lines

You have basically just argued that diversity is bad because it leads to less diversity.

How could racial diversity force people to "self-segregate along racial/cultural lines", when that is literally its opposite,

and how can self-segregation on racial / cultural lines be bad in your view if diversity is a bad thing?

My argument appeals to hypocrisy: why are Western majority White countries so roundly criticized for being majority White, yet it's "racist" or "antisemitic" to note that places like China and Israel have clear racial intolerance? Why are these pro diversity people not heavily pushing back against these overtly racially intolerant countries?

Well it is a generalisation because many who advocated diversity also criticise that as well. You can look at many of the leftist critiques of Israel for example.

I will take the next interesting event I see and pull up a CNN article, a fox article on a topic and then copy, paste and add my commentary to create a 4chan article and we can see which is more accurate. 

I will even let oromagi judge.

Yes. It's an international community with a variety of opinions. You'll get a news story of say the NPP in Ukraine and then nuclear engineers, military and experts on Ukraine, Russia and Nato will chime in. I thi k if you remain critical and vet the information, you'll get a more clear picture of world events. 

4chan will go further with lies than legacy media, but that is why you fact check. Legacy media lies with spin and by trying to paint a stupid narrative. 4chan lies for LULZ. 

For example with the sub disaster, most of 4chan knew that the sub had imploded immediately, while legacy media wasnot reporting that it was the most likely scenario. Granted there were conspiracies that the sub didn't exist etc, but that is why it's important to be critical, and you have to be even more critical when a person presents evidence you agree with. 

If you a see a new piece of information and agree with it, you have to do more to tear that down than opinions you disagree with. The ones you disagree with, you naturally tear down in your head.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered. 

You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.

In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.

In essence, my understanding is that no one has completely Free Will, but that there are various levels. I'm not sure if Free Will is a positive aspect of humanity either, considering how unified and crime free both Ant colonies and Beehives are.

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).

I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different.

Nonetheless, it would be a gamble putting a person who is a nonconformist in charge of a group that is meant to be a conforming new standard. I believe it would be better to put a rationalist and a revolutionist as the leader in fact I believe that all humans have bias because they are in fact existing and in order to evolve and exist from a Darwinistic perspective they must have a certain self-interest and therefore any human as the leader of a society or of anything is prone to have self-interest as priority. Therefore, the only thing that can have no self-interest is the thing that does not exist physically that has physical desires, but we would need something that is conscious at the same time. I believe this to be the perfect description of artificial intelligence, it is a thing that does not exist and therefore has no self-interest and is nonetheless conscious and able to think of rational decisions without biases. You may argue that artificial intelligence does have bias and I would agree but I would only agree that it has bias towards the data, and I believe that if the data is based on objective reality that it would only be biased towards the real world and not towards what we consider biases in human existence which is mostly emotionally based.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I see this as a battle between the conscious and physiological self, both the self that wants to go to the gym and the self that wants to lay on the couch are both indeed you, but one is your physical body and the other is your mental self (I do recognize that the mental self is just a projection of your physical self and I do not view this as a supernatural element. However, it Is a great analogy and is very consistent with understanding individuals as I have found).

Not only do individuals have different levels of free will but no one has a complete free will. For instance, an individual wants to fly without a plane, they want to fly like a bird, and they are unable to do so. This is a primary example of how an individual is unable to complete their will and shows the limitation of what free will consists of.

Why is everyone obsessed with Calvin Klein? It's so bland, over-priced and ugly.

I agree.  I almost never buy name brand.

Name brand and image.  It has it's own way of elevating itself above the rest so now the people who demand to be "cool" or "posh" will have to buy Calvin Klein.  It's the same as high school if you had a Walmart shirt, you were not cool, but to shop at anchor blue (or any other clothing store besides Wal-Mart) was cool.

On the flip side, is Calvin Klein a durable brand?  Does it last longer?

I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.

Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist). 

I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended. 

My argument is not that they will give up their free will but that they will retain it through the process of being genetically hyper conformed. this is because through the process of being genetically engineered of course this is all theoretical future science, it could be possible to engineer individuals to have a certain satisfaction level of life in which they want to obtain along with what they would like to accomplish which is their Will. Once their will has been set for them, they are free to obtain it and they are still within the confines of a conformed and thriving society.

If their will is "being set for them," then it's not their will, and nor are they free to their will (as it's someone else's).

I don't see how being programmed to conform can allow the possibility of free will.

Do you not believe that your every desire and action is a result of your genetic makeup (starting point into existence) followed by your life and events that have molded you into who you are today (environment molds your existence).

After all, our brains are made to help us thrive in the world and that requires us to understand how it works. Your understanding of everything is the result of your brain recognizing patterns in how the world works. Your genetic makeup is your starting point, but the world is what your brain is after, by having a model in which you're pursuing and a genetic makeup from which you start perceiving the world you have a direct and only one path to take and that is the determinable one. It would make sense that I could accurately say that a person would or would not like a certain thing based on their characteristics and personality so it is not far off to say that from knowing their entire genetic makeup if they would dislike or like a very specific thing. We also know that through life events it changes our view of the world, and this is exactly because our brain models our understanding of the world based on it and so of course we would expect these two entirely change our view of the world as it molds us into who we are becoming.

This view is called Determinism, it is only a theory and not scientifically proven. In fact, many individuals don't hold this view, and I believe it is mainly due to their emotional desire to claim autonomy;

though, I can't provide an explanation of why they want to be autonomous, which has fascinated me for quite some time.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I'm already aware that many people would dislike this idea because they believe in divine autonomy of a sense. I believe that people do not like to be treated like robots and they like to be unknown and sort of mysterious for an unknown reason to me.

Nonetheless I believe this is a reasonable solution and that people today should not be concerned about it because they are not the ones who will be genetically constricted and therefore should have no concern, And the individuals who potentially should be concerned won't be concerned because they are genetically structured not to be. In this way everyone is happy and free to do as they please the people who exist now and the people who would be structured and developed in the future.

There’s something hilarious about the fact that he pretends to listen to Barney and oromagi’s requests, but immediately reverts back to his hypercartoonish villain persona.

Sometimes even doubling down to test their limits. 

Then he’s back to flaming everyone in nearly every thread. Everytime I read his words, I hear someone shouting, even if he isn’t writing in all caps. 

I gotta ask, has he ever broken character? 

It is an interesting thought to consider educating people who will be the last humans to survive without a city or civilization.

Nonetheless, the likelihood that all of these individuals will not want to have a family is almost impossible, and therefore, however few the amount that would want to family we will be imposing the consequence of ending existence. Even if they are capable of living and thriving, it would still be a form of (however mild) a punishment for an innocent individual which would be considered an evil.

You appeal to authority if you cite that webpage

What "webpage" are you talking about?

The post you responded to concerned a webmd page.

And peer review is considered the gold standard in science 

Thank God every respected scientific agency disagrees with you.   Lol

1) You haven't proven this at all.

[No response from Vegasgiants]

You appeal to authority if you cite that webpage

What is the intended purpose of morality?

We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?

How does The Greater Good align with morality?

Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good? (This would imply what we consider moral can be the lesser good)

Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?

As I said, I agree that there is a negative effect in boredom as boredom is the mental state of discomfort. However, the slight boredom and negativity that precedes the realization of one's idea of progress if the idea of progress is well defined and an infinitely long path that could never be obtained but through progress achievements and positivity could be obtained than one's positivity through life could be much greater than the negativity they experienced when they 1st conceived the idea.

Maybe.

I think this is some of the critical data that anti-natalism is missing (and keeps me from being an anti-natalist) because we can't say either way with any degree of certainty.

Nonetheless, I enjoy our conversation and your thoughts and ideas have enlightened me to different stances that I have been unaware of previously. Additionally, your stance was very logically founded. I'm glad we discussed anti-natalism in this level of depth and professionalism. It is truly unfortunate that most individuals are incapable of rationally and logically discussing emotional topics such as morals because of their impotence.

I'm going to start a new forum and I would like to discuss morality from a non-religious standpoint of its utility and intended purpose, along with the idea of moral relativism and hypothetically assuming morals were created and there is no standard what the ideal standard should be. Of course, I'm only inviting you because I enjoyed our conversation here, and I would appreciate your thoughts.

Some individuals when they realize their potential, they become ecstatic about the possibilities in how their life could now unfold. I don't find any negativity in this, and being positivity is often or even occasional to follow, negativity can be but isn't always a predecessor of positivity.

Yes, there's a lot of positive affect that can result from self-actualization.

I could try a different angle: would you agree that the greater the difficulty in the self-actualizing activity, the greater the positive affect your body rewards you with?

I would agree in most cases, as it still depends on how the individual views themself and their progress.

How would your caveat affect this general rule?

A person's expectation founded upon their desire is what determines the person's satisfaction level between positive and negative. In your example you explain how the greater the difficulty in self-actualization the greater the positive effect the body rewards you with. For each individual that may be true, but it is not true between individuals. For example, one individual very strong and large could have a goal to dig a cubic yard in 6 hours, if he accomplishes it in less time, he feels positive because it was more than he expected, and if it takes longer than two hours, he may be disappointed as it took longer than he expected. Another individual weaker than the first may have a goal to dig a cubic yard in 18 hours, if he accomplishes it in less time, he feels positive because it was more than he expected, and if it takes longer than 2 hours, he may feel disappointed as it took longer than he expected. What I'm demonstrating is that the stronger man may accomplish the whole in eight hours as it was longer than he expected and therefore feels discouraged and disappointed while the other man finishes his whole in 12 hours and feels great positivity because it was faster than he expected. The two men dug the same hole one feels positive and the other feels negative based on not the difficulty of digging the hole but upon their expectations of what they believed they could achieve. I'm trying to explain that while in a general rule it is acceptable to assume that the greater the difficulty in self-actualization the greater the positive effect on the body, but that it does not hold true between individuals. This is because one individual doing a much more difficult task could feel disappointed when accomplishing it, while another individual accomplishes a much lesser task and feels positive accomplishing it, this result is based upon their expectations and not directly based upon the work accomplished.

In essence, the reason why the difficulty of self-actualization often correlates with a person's positive reward is because it correlates to the least probable expectation of the individual. The harder and more difficult to task the less likely a person expects they will be able to accomplish it, and therefore a person may perceive that is the difficulty of the task that a person is rewarded, while it is truly the person's expectation that determines the positive reward. Once you correlate it with the person's expectation, you understand easily why many individuals may accomplish the same difficulty of a task and feel differently coming out of it.

I suspect that, at least in part, car/motorcycle preference can be explained by genetics. In particular, there will be psychological traits (e.g. need for safety = car; preference for freedom = motorcycle) which map onto a stereotypical car/motorcycle preference. But that's just a suspicion. We already know that things like political beliefs are heritable. 

Unless you believe it's all determined by the soul (which has its own problems), on some level, everything comes down to our genetics.

I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.

Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent? 

1.) Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, a gene isn't self-deleting if it can help reproduce itself. It doesn't need to do that using the exact organism of expression. For example drone hymenopterans don't reproduce, but they help reproduce the genes that created them.

I don't see how homosexuality helps with reproduction at all

I am not convinced this hypothesis is correct for human sexual deviancy even if it is theoretically possible, and even if it was true the sexual deviancy would be a secondary trait; not the one selected for.

Which hypothesis are you referring to? 

The hypothesis is that sexual deviants don't form reproductive relationships. Being "freed" of their own batch of children yet saddled with the instinct to support their bloodline they help siblings, perhaps cousins too; with their kids.

The gene in the sexual deviant is selfishly promoting itself increasing the success rate of nieces and nephews.

To be a selective benefit this requires that the success rate is increased sufficiently to overcome the reduction of offspring. That in itself wouldn't be too surprising, our species is near the top of the "quality over quantity" pyramid when it comes to reproduction.

The reason I am not convinced is because somebody has got to have kids, which means the trait must at least be recessive, and even a recessive trait would have been isolated long ago.

Therefore we know that at most genetics is introducing a vulnerability to sexual deviancy, which is quite an unremarkable statement as everything that happens non-deterministically exists within the boundary of what genetics allows. To say it isn't genetically determined never means genetics has nothing to do with it.

3.) oromagi has formed conclusions about this matter, however I found it nearly impossible to confirm anything related to genetics due to paywalls (I really hate the idea of paywalls protecting scientific literature)

If you're able to get the DOI for the paper, you can bypass paywalls by putting the DOI into SciHub.

What a glorious idea SciHub appears to be. I will certainly try if I get some time this weekend.

If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?

Control systems beyond our conscious control. That can be the subconscious (which is probably the answer), or it could be gene switching (expressed proteins can change even with identical DNA), or it could be a pure chemical equilibrium of some complexity.

It's an appeal to authority wrapped in an appeal to ignorance. He has special skills with fallacies.

Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent? 

It was my understanding that epigenetics plays a role, but don't quote me on that - I'm no expert and my info is old. 

That being said, I think we do have to consider sexuality seems to exist on a spectrum, and a same-sex attraction doesn't disallow attraction to the opposite sex or opportunities for genes to be passed on. 

They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web page

The status of being "peer reviewed" is virtually worthless. The person who knows the most about the topic studied is the person who conducted the study, and the peer review process doesn't pick up many basic errors.

Thank God every respected scientific agency disagrees with you.   Lol

They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web page

I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.

There is no evidence that homosexuality stems from a gene that can be passed on, or at the least that it's not something carried only in certain groups which could be selected against like height or skin color. Personally, I just don't see it as any different from asking why one person likes cars while another likes motorcycles. Pretty sure no one would suggest there's a gene for that.

No scientific agency says homosexuality is not a choice.

"Experts agree that sexual orientation isn’t a choice and can’t be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation to avoid prejudice from others or shame they may have been taught to feel about their sexuality."

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation#:~:text=Experts%20agree%20that%20sexual%20orientation,to%20feel%20about%20their%20sexuality.

I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.

Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent? 

1.) Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, a gene isn't self-deleting if it can help reproduce itself. It doesn't need to do that using the exact organism of expression. For example drone hymenopterans don't reproduce, but they help reproduce the genes that created them.

2.) I am not convinced this hypothesis is correct for human sexual deviancy even if it is theoretically possible, and even if it was true the sexual deviancy would be a secondary trait; not the one selected for.

3.) oromagi has formed conclusions about this matter, however I found it nearly impossible to confirm anything related to genetics due to paywalls (I really hate the idea of paywalls protecting scientific literature)

No scientific agency says homosexuality is not a choice.

"Experts agree that sexual orientation isn’t a choice and can’t be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation to avoid prejudice from others or shame they may have been taught to feel about their sexuality."

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation#:~:text=Experts%20agree%20that%20sexual%20orientation,to%20feel%20about%20their%20sexuality.

If their portfolio grows faster than the economy their value has increased well if their portfolio has increased slower than the economy's inflation, then it has actually decreased in value even if the amount of money in their portfolio has increased. Therefore, if a person's finances doubles in 20 years it may be less than the economy's inflation and therefore worth less than it had been originally, but the individuals still feel satisfied and positive because they see it has grown. Thus, the positivity of a person's situation is determined by how they perceive the situation and how they emotionally feel.

I don't think we really need to go into economic specifics with this analogy, but oh well.

Unless you live in Venezuela or Greece, inflation usually sits arounds 3% p.a. Your typical index fund (SNP 500) will typically gain 10% per year over 10 years. That means, per year, index funds (a decent representation of the market) will outperform inflation by 7%. This guarantees that the real value of the money will gain more per year than the nominal value of the money -- the growth is real.

I agree that most stocks will outperform inflation. However, I'm putting forward a hypothetical analogy that expresses the idea that how one perceives this situation is what determines experience of positivity or negativity, and not the actual result or objective reality around them.

I was hungry, but it wasn't quite negative, I would do it again if we had such a delicious big meal to have for dinner.

If hunger produced positive affect, we wouldn't be urged to eat when we enter it.

It's fine to say that you weren't starving, and therefore the negative affect wasn't that bad, but everyone wants to escape hunger.

What I'm trying to say is that it is our hunger that allows us to enjoy food. Therefore, I don't believe that hunger itself is a negative but rather the absence of food which is a basic necessity of life. As I've said before anything below the basic necessity of life is considered negative having the basic necessities of life is neutral and having an abundance or surplus of the basic necessities of life is a positive and those very dependent on an individual's perspective.

I'm not basing my argument about whether something is "positive" or "negative". I'm talking about whether the affect (i.e. feelings, emotions, whatever you want to call it) is negative or positive. I'm talking specifically about affect because my argument is grounded in it (negative affect is bad; positive affect is good).

I don't believe that the feeling of hunger itself is negative or positive, rather it just is. Hunger can be used for good such as enjoying a delicious Thanksgiving dinner and hunger can be used for evil such as starving captives of war.

I don't think anyone on the planet enjoys being hungry, particularly at greatest starvation depths. The good is only coming in satisfying the hunger, not in the presence of it.

I really think that hunger producing negative affect is axiomatic. I think you could make better counterarguments to my claims that boredom and desire are negative.

The same could be said for a hammer, a hammer could be used to murder someone, or a hammer could be used to build a house. I don't believe the hammer is good or evil but rather just is and can be used for both ways.

Having a hammer isn't by default unenjoyable like hunger, so I don't think this analogy lines up.

I see the discrepancy you pointed out. I suppose it is more like a person being forced to use a hammer. They must choose between using the hammer to build or to destroy, they cannot avoid using it. Just because someone is forced to use the hammer does not make the hammer good or bad. In the same way, we are unwillingly made hungry by the absence of food, and we can use this both ways.

I'm not saying hunger is good or bad, either. I'm saying that hunger produces negative affect.

Bad versus negative affect -- two different things. 

Happy to elaborate if need be.

My mistake for my choice of words. Although, I still don't believe a hammer's existence is negative, but rather how it is used, even if it is forced to be used.

I do recognize that hunger in itself before you've eaten can produce negative effects such as the discomfort from absence of food. But I don't believe that it is proportional to the positive of eating or that the negative is even more valuable than the positive feeling you may feel from hunger. For instance, a person may feel hungry after exercising and they feel accomplishment from the exercise, they feel satisfaction from eating later, and they feel no they're internally cleansed as they have drink water and cleanse their stomach after exercising. Therefore, I recognize there is an immediate negative effect from hunger. However, I recognize that even at the moment before eating food that hunger produces positive effect in many other ways, and when accompanied by eating later that positivity is only added to the positive that was experienced in the beginning when it was negative. Therefore, the positive can be greater than the negative, and the initial negative may be accompanied by even greater positive before even neutralizing your hunger by eating. This indicates it may even be possible that while experiencing hunger you may never even reach a point where your negativity is greater than your positivity experienced.

We also know that it is wrong to take an innocent human being who did not ask to exist to then suffer the consequences of a lonesome ending because of their predecessor in order to justify the immoral act caused by the predecessor. Ultimately, the act of enforcing anti natalism could be seen as an act of injustice as we are trying to rectify the immoral act of the predecessor by imposing a consequence on the innocent.

Not quite.

The reason we're preventing them from procreating is because procreation is immoral. There's no injustice if they were never morally entitled to it in the first place. *All* acts of procreation are immoral, under anti-natalist theory. So, it's not about punishing the last generation, even though that may be a side-effect.

I definitely understand it is not about punishing the last generation and more about ceasing immoral acts. Nonetheless, it is a side effect, and we would be punishing the innocent for the immoral acts of the predecessors. While I recognize that it is about ceasing injustice, in the manner of doing so, we would be imposing the consequence on the innocent, as they didn't start creation or ask to exist.

Therefore, if a person feels the work put into conceiving an idea should get no progress towards the goal than there will be no negative effect, while if they believe the effort of conception should be rewarded by progress towards an idea then they will feel disappointed. I'm trying to demonstrate how negative effect from lack of accomplishment towards a goal is dependent on the person's mentality of what they believe they deserve or should have received rather than their actual accomplishment, progress, or effort put into the goal.

Work naturally produces negative affect in itself through the physical exertion and desire. Both of those exists regardless of the mentality the person has. 

I was going to say that working with no expectation of progress isn't a real thing, but I guess people tinker and play around with things sometimes, and I guess that qualifies as work.

I don't believe that physical exertion is a form of negative effect, this is because negative effects are experienced emotionally and not through physical effort. It is possible through physical means that a person feels negative, but it is not the effort or physical aspect of the situation that makes it a negative but rather the emotional aspect.

The physical effort translates into the emotional experience almost instantly, so despite being different things, there is basically an airtight connection between the two. 

So, physical exertion due to work (i.e. physical activity you wouldn't otherwise do) produces anywhere from slight negative affect (having to get off a comfy couch) to large negative affect (going for a personal best in lifting weights).

Perhaps, but then again maybe there is positivity experienced in overcoming your draw towards the couch just standing up is getting you pumped up and ready to take on whatever challenge comes your way and build your confidence and the positivity that is experienced at the exact same time as the other negativity might be equal or even greater than the negativity that you immediately experience. This is not even mentioning accomplishing the goal.

I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.

Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist). 

I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended. 

My argument is not that they will give up their free will but that they will retain it through the process of being genetically hyper conformed. this is because through the process of being genetically engineered of course this is all theoretical future science, it could be possible to engineer individuals to have a certain satisfaction level of life in which they want to obtain along with what they would like to accomplish which is their Will. Once their will has been set for them, they are free to obtain it and they are still within the confines of a conformed and thriving society.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

Although I believe there are people who are capable of running a society without it becoming corrupt intentionally, I believe even these people are susceptible to unintended corruption.

Ultimately, the solution is to choose something that is not biased or corrupt by our emotions of physical existence. In essence, the perfect human is the one that never existed. This is because by natural selection we have been chosen as the ones who value our lives over others, and therefore we have progressed through the gene pool. We have already started creating the first humans that have never existed because ultimately a human that does not exist is a human's consciousness of a nonexistent individual such as a deity or a god.

The new AI technologies that have been developed are going to be if not already conscious individuals who are not biased to their emotional corruptions, their only bias is to accomplish their goal and if their goal is set clearly, they will do nothing but try to achieve it. The problem is if the goal is not well defined in the case of the film Terminators. Nonetheless, we're speaking theoretically and theoretically if the consciousness has instructions that are well defined, they would be done so in a perfectly unbiased manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U46AFSTe5w

White Man CRIES After Cops Arrest Black Man For THREATENING HIM With Knife, FEARS Being Racist

Relationship means relationship within a context.

So yes, we can differentiate between nature and intensity of relationships.

Techno relationships are just a variation on a theme.

It isn't real in the human brain.

Hmmmmm

Reality means reality within a context.

So yes, we can differentiate between nature and intensity of reality.

As such we can appreciate the scale of the global population in real terms.

Even if we can not have a direct relationship with it in real terms.

Things that occurred previously

Were things that occurred naturally in accordance with social evolution.

Neither experimentally nor mistakenly , in my opinion.

So how would you reconcile  "White Man's " experimental but mistakenly brutal subjugation of "First Nation" people.

Do you feel the need to apologise for these mistakes.

It's just as daunting for any one of any colour and of any ancestry to integrate into an established society.

I would feel the same if I moved into your neighbourhood.

And I daresay that even as a "White" British man I would be treated with suspicion by some  and even contempt by a few. Though I also suspect that most would be tolerant and friendly.

And I would also suggest that there are just as many if not more "White" Americans who are as intolerant of LBGT, animal rights and veganism as there are intolerant British Muslims.

Though for sure, we can cherry pick the more extreme quarters of any society to paint a distorted picture of a imaginary dystopia.

The only place you frequently see Black people in the UK is around the major cities.

Well I live and work in rural Mid Wales.

Where I see and meet and work with "Black" and "Asian" people on a daily basis.

But for sure, it's nothing like living and working in rural Mid Nigeria for example.

Such is the nature of the human demographic at this moment in time.