Katrisia

Less. I think movements against pornography have great points, so I rarely consume erotic or pornographic content now.

I'm not from the U.S.

Creatine instead of collagen, if you ask me. Creatine helps build muscle. Muscles keep everything in place (which is especially important in case of hypermobility) and they relieve work from other parts.

🥺

No, they're not fully developed, but they distinguish actions morally speaking (even older children do) and they can choose to do better.

Don't worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.

Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that's the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.

Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.

People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.

And... that's it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.

Oh! That's a complicated consequence, yes. I cannot lie and say that studying sad things won't ever make one sad. It's... hard.

I don't think it is a rule that it is going to warp one's vision, but I've seen people getting depressed and definitely biased when studying philosophical pessimism. It seems like something that only happens in jokes or memes, but no, reading Arthur Schopenhauer or whoever can be dangerous if one is already vulnerable to depression, isolation, etc.

I definitely advise discretion. And it's not because they're dark monsters, monks of death dressed in black robes. There's nothing too morbid about the books; that's probably just the myth time has created around them. In reality, their danger is just pondering on dark aspects of life that can be disheartening if one is not prepared. Even when the reading is for high school or university, or for curiosity, I think these authors should be picked with an open mind and a serene "heart".

Thank you for reading and answering.

There's also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.

But, from the negative utilitarianists I've known and seen, I've found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it's a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.

Yes, common objections are that the economy could crash or that humanity could go extinct. I don't think these are good objections, and I have different reasons. It seems like a bad "an end justifies the means" way of thinking sometimes.

Honestly, the economic crash one is weird. The logic is that we must sacrifice our present and immediate future (that happens to be millions of lives) so that other lives are better (supposedly). Huh? It reminds me of the argument I heard against prohibiting animals in circuses. They argue that the animals that were in the circuses at the time would be slaughtered or abandoned, so their logic was allowing more and more years of animals suffering inside the circuses. What? Yes, the change definitely hurt, but it was possible both to fight against their slaughter and abandonment, and to get rid of that abuse forever. If we decrease in population, of course it will be difficult, but we can find ways to face the difficulties while we get into a better system. We cannot preserve capitalism just because we are afraid of hard times, when capitalism itself is hurting us.

The extinction one is different. We won't get to that point, but even if we did, it would be a free decision of humanity that is hurting no one else. That's the intuition they probably have: that those humans would be hurting the ones that do not exist yet, but I already commented about that reasoning. I don't think there's harm against the non-existant. Our end is possibly inevitable because the habitable Universe seems to have an end. If we decide to fight it, that's okay as long as we do it ethically. But if we collectively decide to end it all, I respect it as long as it's done ethically too. Anyway, as I said, this is mere imagination as I do not see humanity (in the big numbers we now are) never ever choosing this path together. We will be here for some time.

Unless you're both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that's not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a "temporary antinatalist".

It is discussed with those words because it has been transformed into an ethical question. It is a personal freedom, but it can be asked how ethically correct or incorrect that action is aside from our current laws or [cultural/social] morality.

It's about wonder, ponder. I think that's always important, even for things that seem taboo at first.