The Obligation to exist

What is the obligation to exist?

The obligation to exist, since we cannot ask ourselves to exist, this is a woman to take on her to impose to exist in conditions, body, mind, environment, parents, culture, and educators, you do not have further requested that the existence itself.

Your body and your intellect are manufactured by a person who is not you.

They are manufactured blind in the female uterus by a person who does not control (not always since there still exists on Earth the direct rape and the patriarchal rape, and other involuntary procreations) that the release of the process of generation which is then automatic, very variable, and far from reliable.

Bodies and intellect are manufactured according to models which are imposed to you. You cannot ask for in advance a body of superman, an intellect of genius, eagle wings, measure three or five meters, feed himself from light, etc

You should also know that these manufacturers can easily sabotage the uterine work in various ways (alcohol, drugs, etc.), but never improve it.

Then, this beginning body and this virgin intellect are placed in an environment which is also imposed to you, with all that accompanies it and which will accompany you your life lasting.

To start you will have right, if bodies and intellect are adequate, are normalized, according to the potential that some name innate since you did not wish it but just like the rest besides, so you'll be entitled to a compulsory education in your intellect virgin of cultural meanings.

In fact, you will do nothing but record, because the only means of teaching you anything is to lay out your receivers, eyes and ears primarily, in the direction of the things which you will have to acquire, and which will be necessary for you to understand the Life.

But, nobody, even the most skilful teacher, control the way in which this teaching penetrates your nervous system. Of course this is valid for knowledge, as well as for the features which will treat this knowledge.

And once again, it is very easy to sabotage the work of teaching, because each one in your entourage can take part in this sabotage, and impossible on the other hand to improve it, because your potential is your potential.

"Dura lex, sed lex"

You did not ask to exist, but already the Law is imposed to you democratically, without your voice, by those which already exist.

But as you are not a slave, it is antidemocratic, well, you can perfectly go to see elsewhere in another country, even over the Moon or Mars (after obtaining the passport and the visas according to the cases) if you can obtain food to free perennialize your body.

Because, the cells which constitute it constantly require to be repaired and to be renewed, and especially much water.

So no work, no body, and while you're there, slog a little more to protect your anatomy and your prudery because it is cold, and even more if you want a piece of land, and increasingly if you want to enhance your nondesired life.

Now that you exist, better is worth to keep busy intelligently, as you were learned. And especially think social, are empathetic, compassionate, social. Do you love each other, especially other.

The most wonderful is that humans consistently accept to be fooled by their progenitor, self-proclaimed "Mom", but that is understandable since we are born virgins from cultural meanings and that we undergo like fledglings the famous footprint (imprinting) the initial protector.

That our intellect is imposed during construction or by our instructors, this does not change, it is imposed on us. So how can we speak of "free will"?

At which time of the vast human saga this subtle scam of free will was it invented?

Admittedly, it is convenient and much cheaper (apparently, and now), to accuse the troublemaker forced into existence and education, rather than all its educators themselves also forced, and so the whole vicious society that spawned it.

And finally after much suffering, in an absurd and ridiculously short ritual course, we die and are paying, already dead, the plot of land, the coffin or urn that will hold our remains. And another tax! After the obligation to exist, the obligation to die.

Does Madam, the fact of having ovules give you the right to use, and to even misuse this power to compel somebody to exist, to exist to be useful to you, and to exist under any conditions of body, intellect, and environment?

We do not have any valid reason to force somebody to exist.

In some manners that the manufacturing of an existence occurs, if it is generated voluntarily, then it is the responsibility of the birth mother.

And especially this existence could be manufactured only for the intentional service of the birth mother, whatever this service. The created existence is either a tool or a servant or a slave, there is no alternative.

In order that the Life exists, it is necessary that the universe made this life. How did he do it? That is the business of the scientists.

The believers think, without any evidence, but for a completely dishonest reason that a god created the universe and life. The purpose of that is to get rid of the general responsibility for the existence for their children.

They claim that this god created us, humans, either directly or by inducing the evolution of life through a mechanism known as Intelligent Design, which returns to same since this creator of universe is supposed to control all, strange control!

But now that we exist, we need someone, someone like us, similar to us, has forced us to exist.

A person sensitive, conscious, is responsible for her actions, at least as responsible for the same responsibility that she herself held to inculcate.

This person is thus responsible because she us “sells” this responsibility, and it will be the same for us if we continue this vicious process.

From a divine point of view, given the potential of this entity, of course imaginary, the manufacturing of a sensitive being, potentially suffering and mortal, is not explainable, while itself is supposed to be perfect in every fields, body, intellect, and eternity.

It would thus have manufactured quantities of beings weak, sickly, stupid, monstrous eaters of lives, criminals by obligation, monsters compared with him, less than maggots, microbes! What a competence, what a omnipotence! And we would be his children?

Produce Life is to produce misery, suffering, not to mention the evil, crime, and death, and it is inexcusable.

For a human mother, sensitive, aware, able to understand this principle, this is equally inexcusable. Earth trash is not even healthy, not even clean, not hygienic at all, it is full of violence, warlike and dangerous, and you dare to insert there your baby, Madam?

If you are a believer, why don't you tell your god to clean its Augean stables before installing your child? Why do you play the game of a god irresponsible, hot-tempered, quarrelsome, the one who punish innocents, and killer of children.?

And by the way, why do not wait to be to paradise before conceiving a child?

So expect to be yonder to heaven before thinking of creating a child, make on Earth is to offer them hell!

And by the way, what is the use to exist?

But if you are not a believer, Madam, ask your governments to clean the baby's room before installing your little there, if you still dare to make one.

Do not hesitate to insist, because they need flesh for job, flesh for tax, and cannon fodder. Do not forget that you are the game masters of the Life.

I repeat: “You are the game masters of the Life”

It is not the happiness of only one individual, or even thousands, which counts, it is the misfortune of only one. Nobody can take the risk to manufacture only one miserable existence. Are you army chief, Madam? Do you manufacture little soldiers, by estimating the damage and losses on your own small child?

Especially as it may fall on you. And, madam! If you are a responsible and sensitive person, that will make at least two unhappy at once.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themself, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (May 2016)

Handicap and the obligation to exist

“I am Josef Mengele, the sad doctor experimenter Nazi of Auschwitz. I amputate your legs surgically, you can still live. I amputate your right arm, you can still live ...”

"It's always me, the henchman Adolf. I amputate you one kidney, you can still live. I amputate you ears and eyes, you can still live ... Why do you complain, you can still eat and defecate? "

What are you complaining since you could have been born thus, and that you would not have said anything to your mother, and that the society would not have had anything to complain, since that been part of the risks that it accepts for itself? You are only one of its members. And doesn't one do what one wants of the parts of his body?

For, this amiable society does not consider you as a separate individual that has to be absolutely perfectly formed, but may as well be a part necrosed of itself, an acceptable error, a collateral damage!

The disabled birth-child questioning his mother:

"Tell Mom, why I have not two eyes like everyone else? Tell Mom, why I have not two arms like everyone else? Tell Mom, why I'm in the hospital and I have no boyfriend? Tell Mom, why? "

Answer of the mother “…”

Mengele had the opened eyes when it operated. Mother-to-be, she, works blind, or, rather, it is her uterus which operates, and Mom made him absolute confidence.

You could as well have been this child born without legs, without eyes or ears. When Mom makes your existence, it is a possible result, she did not expect, but it's perfectly possible.

Daily quantities of beings almost human physically, are introduced so clueless in Life. Is it possible to compensate for this free manufactured misery? Of course not !

A mother who has generally not wanted to handicap her child, conceived this baby, who does not have, him, certainly wanted to exist in these conditions, because he does not even wish to exist. He was forced to exist by someone who will want that, this miserable maggot incomplete, calls her, "Mom", despite this absolute failure.

Who is the monster? Who made Elephant man? Who made Mengele? Who played Russian roulette on the embryo and has made a runt? It's “Mom” !

Pain and suffering are not visible phenomena.

An important point is who decides what is handicap, the society or the individual. For society, the handicap has two forms, absolute handicap, and handicap related to age.

The absolute handicap is when you are missing an aspect of being that is present in the average of other humans called normal people, this may be physical or mental.

The handicap relating to the age is on the same principle, but in your age bracket, normality is then based on your age bracket.

To simplify, there are normal babies, normal teens, normal adults, and normal elderly.

But relatively, the baby as the old man are handicapped physically compared to the young adult. And also relatively, if one considers the age where an intellect is achieved, the others are handicapped before and after this age bracket.

And more subtly, we all are handicapped intellectually or physically compared to the best of ourselves of the course of our life.

We all are handicapped also, in a field or another, compared to the best of us, as well intellectually as physically. There is always better than us, and, when one among us is described as superior to the others, that never lasts very long.

This kind of human faculties is not very stable. And aren't we all handicapped compared to what we would like to be? Aren't we handicapped of wings which we do not have? Aren't we handicapped of aptitudes of the fabulous beings and divinities whom we imagined?

I myself decided to feel handicapped of these abilities. So my mother made me deliberately handicapped by creating me human.

Nobody may choose in my place, Nobody may decide for you what you feel as normal or as a handicap.

And yet my own mother begot me, and the society did nothing to prevent the risk on others (me), instead it has a strong incentive to make my existence handicapped to serve it, only for serve them as experimental flesh for Mom, and for society, of flesh for job, of flesh for tax, and cannon fodder.

If you make a deliberate suffering on others, it is a deliberate crime, if you produce it involuntarily, it is always a crime, even involuntary.

But if you produce an action of which you know that it can generate, then there it is also a voluntary crime, because it would be well too easy to pretext that you had not betted negatively on the glass half empty.

A bottle half empty or half full is not a question of pessimism or optimism, in all cases the amount of liquid is the same, and what matters is the impact on others and not your personal state of soul.

The difference with regard to you is how you'll pay the crime, but for the victim, there is no difference, his suffering will be the same, regardless of how it is compensated.

It is not even as you consider disability, whether committed before or after birth. But the term of criminal, if it is the parents who commit this action to impose suffering on others, should be applied to them.

A mother who gives birth to a handicapped child is an "intentional" criminal. The society is also responsible for complicity of intentional crime.

And it's even more true to society because every day many are born with disabilities very seriously and are generated with its request. Because procreation has also become a social demand and not just an individual animal act.

The culture and social environment are strongly centered on procreation. Life is only replication. We are members as soon our conception, but our partnership shares at birth are never equal…

Of which right does someone else can it decide for you of your suffering, your death, or even your hell? Of which right do you take the unilateral decision to make my life quite simply, but also height of sadism to me to exist, whatever the consequences for me?

Do handicapped birth people have the right to require and claim the head of the persons in charge of their daily misery and suffering? Why not ? Why the famous law of retaliation, based on our judicial systems, will it not be applied to this case? Aren't the creators of existences thus free?

If they are free, it is that they inserted voluntarily the head of their own child in the terrestrial sludge, do not tell me that they did not know that the handicap was not a known alternative, a lottery. Do not tell me that they did not know that this lunatic lottery could not arrive to the person whom they manufactured blind!

We are not any more with the damaged first of birth. There is no longer any surprise about his physical or mental impairments, it is every day that the ax falls on the head of thousands of babies.

One should not say: “Oh! But what a misfortune my poor Lady! What did you make to the good God to deserve this punishment?”

But rather: “Oh! But what you are as bitch as sadistic my poor Lady! See what you did with this poor innocent who did not ask to exist.”

Create an existence is the worst rape, the worst of crimes.

If your future child has a chance on a million to have a weak body, do not do it. If your future child has a chance on a million, of having an intelligence donkey mentally disabled, do not do it.

If you are a believer, Madam, and you think your future child has one chance in a billion to go to hell, do not do it. No life no risk.

It is normal to defend the handicapped people, but certainly not those who handicap. Instead, all existing, disabled or not, should file a complaint against them. When a child is too young to defend itself, it must have a lawyer. It is at Justice to decide whether those who handicaps are just idiot, or worse sadistic, therefore slaver.

If you booze and that after an accident you make a handicapped person, the law condemns you. If you copulate and that you make a handicapped child, everyone feels sorry for you. Where is Justice? When will antenatal ill-treatment be treated? When will obligation of existence be treated?

Hundred percent of the alive ones, whose human ones, will die prematurely, or will finish their life, physically handicapped and often mental.

While we philosophize in a delicious way of the life that mom/dad inflicted to us, the large Stork has just deposited 350,000 babies on planet this very day (I specify these 24 hours):

It's a huge shock for these kids, they just landed delicately on Earth much of these 350,000 are physically or mentally disabled, the limbs, head, internal organs, everything goes, a great number lands morons, many are shattered and will survive only a few days, even a year, hardly.

And among all this mass of flesh for moms, only 25% have an IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and PQ (Physics Quotient) above 100, and you're lucky if your genes do not reserve you any cancer or Parkinson surprise ...

Some mothers themselves will undergo such a shock to this painful landing that 800 of them, at least, will die, while one in seven will suffer a pathology.

If a good Lord made this mess, wait until I catch it, I send it directly to the ICC!

Earth is my home, I forbid you to add the paupers, the sickly, the physically and mentally disabled people, and even quite bearing anyone without my consent.

You claim for yourself the health (which is almost free in France and registered in the Human rights), whereas you are not even able to ensure that the child which you force to exist will not be born seriously handicapped! Isn't this a shame?

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (May 2016)

Overpopulation and the obligation to exist

“Overpopulation” is not an accounting measure, it is a moral measurement, an ethical measurement. Overpopulation is not accounting weighing the human ones and comparing with food, water and the air, that the planet can provide.

There is never overpopulation in the amoral sense of the term, which is the animal sense, because the overflow of life in this case is regulated itself by the death of weak people, malnourished, unlucky persons.

There is overpopulation only in a moral sense invented by the intelligences and consciences that we praise ourselves to be, but currently the living conditions of billion people are perfectly immoral. There is thus overpopulation according to our Human Rights.

The living conditions of one of our future associates must be prepared before installing it in the cradle Earth, well before and socially, otherwise it is useless to create its existence, existence which it did not ask for and even less under unhealthy conditions for him.

We must remember all the immorality there is to make a sensitive existence, conscious, suffering, and mortal for the service of existing people, even offering him every chance for his body, for his intellect and for his life.

What is never the case, because our body is a lottery, like our intellect, like our parents, and the community, without speaking of our often catastrophic education.

People were not widespread on the planet to visit Greenland, Siberia, the Grand Canyon, the Gobi desert, the Kalahari. No of course it is because they have multiplied without counting and continue to do so without reason. When the occupied territory is insufficient to feed the tribe, then they widen their territory.

An unfortunate is already too much misfortune. Have you traced the curve of growth in the number of unfortunate on Earth since the dawn of humanity?

If human progress are counted by the decreasing number of unfortunate, in this case one can only admit our incapacity to progress, and even all the opposite since one counts the unhappy ones per billion today.

Whereas in the time of Julius Caesar we could count no more than 200 million infortunates (which was the number of inhabitants of the planet).

There always was “local overpopulation”, i.e. going beyond the threshold of the capacities of feeding of the occupied territory by people, who do not amount according to the territory, but according to the close tribe from which it is necessary to be protected, and which it is necessary to overcome by the excess. What is always the case currently where the tribe is replaced by the nation.

All conflicts are expressions of human overpopulation. There have always been conflicts, and there have always been local overpopulation, now the local, it is the planet, and overcrowding is widely expressed in the last century with our game world wars, and continues to violently do it. Thank you to the terrorists without which we will be bored strongly!

Governments will have trouble to tackle overpopulation head-on, because they need flesh for work, flesh for tax, and as cannon fodder, to increase their GDP, therefore their power, i.e. took  her onto his back to convince the neighbors that the country is strong enough to defend itself.

Governments think in percentage of losses and collateral damage when they count births (7500 serious handicaps for 800,000 births per year in France, this gives about 1%), mothers can not think about their own child in these same terms.

States are masters at home, regarding what do not exceed their borders, but when it comes to water, air, or some other phenomena, such as overpopulation in their countries, which have consequences in international relations, this is no more the case.

The population of a country has an impact on other countries when it involves a large uncontrolled immigration, whatever the reasons, mismanagement of the country, social deprivation, any lack of labor, civil wars, etc.

The future problem of the governments will be to agree with the others harmoniously to depopulate the nations on all planet, because the population makes the strength of the country, according to their countable opinion. In France, the President of the Republic is also chief of the armies…

Religions are like governments, without misfortune they have no reason to be, so they must maintain this misfortune. The introduction of mandatory religion is an effect of overpopulation.

If normal death per billion in a very short period of time (7 billion in a hundred years, for example) is not, according to you, a sign of overpopulation, so what would be the signs of overpopulation?

Because, indeed, if a person is not fed correctly, is not treated properly, does not have a healthy life, she dies "normally" quickly. And in this case, there will never be overcrowded, since a dead man (unnecessarily because always made unnecessarily for itself) is not included in the calculations.

The slate of the calculation of the human population is immediately erased when famine and misery reign. No need to worry about overpopulation (animal, therefore amoral) since there never will be!

Moral signs of overpopulation are: wars, poverty, misery, malaise, unemployment, hunger, thirst, pollution, natural and man-made disasters, governmental disabilities to resolve various problems, creating new problems, displacement, etc.

There is a minimum number of human for the perenniality of the species (if "one" sees a need so that our species continues, as guardian of the Earth zoo for example).

And beyond this number what good is it to require someone to exist (this person will have, obviously, like us all, its word to say on the fact that he likes or does not like the existence that one imposes to him)?

If you think that the world is not in overpopulation state, how do you assess the amount of human not to exceed?

When this number "N" will be achieved, what shall we do, or rather what will they do (in the very near future) to stabilize the population, than we could not have done ourselves with fewer people? If there is no overpopulation, shall we give this extra problem to solve for future generations?

But what good is it to reach that maximum number of humans for the planet? Who orders it to us?

But in fact, what is the use to exist for non-existence, in conditions that procreators not mastered, neither the environment, nor living conditions?

What does it do, to the heterogeneous material (maternal food), to be assembled to become a person sensitive, conscious, suffering, and mortal? Explain for which reason this food mechanical assembly, of which nobody controls the uterine assembly, must become a person conscious, suffering, and mortal.

The populating (opposite with overpopulation) is not the possibility of nourishing the existing population, it is the effective feeding of the population, and it is also and especially the maintenance in good health and in the wellness of the entire population.

But once again, what good is it to require someone to exist for then telling him that it must do its life by itself, for itself? That is completely extravagant, incomprehensible, perfectly Ubuesque!

It is strange that women do not feel that their body belongs to them and that they are entitled to manage the colonization of the world by humans if it suits them.

Don't you feel, Madam, as a little overpopulation, I'm not talking about food overpopulation, but a vast problem of overpopulation of malaise, of suffering, and of misery? The world suffers Madam, you do not control your desire to procreate.

We could be ten-thousand inhabitants on Earth and live in peace. Do you believe that so many people (billions) is necessary? Necessary to what besides? Necessary to protect itself from the human ones! Just do not make bellicose warriors and there will be no reason to protect from the others, only of Nature, and this is already not so bad.

Even if the man were not completely responsible for climate warming, it is on the other hand completely “responsible” of the population, of the quantity of population (overpopulation) that suffers the consequences.

The global warming is a problem, because we are too numerous and that we occupy all the surface of the globe, otherwise it would not be one really, because this phenomenon is recurring, and not really problematic for a species which adapts very easily to its environment.

In 1900, there were 2 billion people on Earth. Intensive agriculture has helped more than double the human workforce. No improvement in agriculture improves the wellness of humans in general, because the number of humans grows disproportionately without control as soon as you give it the opportunity.

The goal of Life (I mean the mechanism that is Life in general) is not the wellness, it is the multiplication of the individuals. Life is a field which increases when conditions are favorable.

That the planet can feed or not thousand-billion human is not the problem. The problem is: from which right to oblige somebody to exist? From which right to oblige somebody to exist to serve those that already exist?

From which Right get someone to exist without mastering the fabrication of his existence in the Frankenstein laboratory that is female uterus? Are people silly? Certainly. Are they animals? Certainly. Are they able to understand what is explained? Certainly if one insists somewhat ...

One cannot continue to market, iron and wheat, with the same currency. One cannot continue to play stock market, on iron, and to exploit the price of wheat in the same way, with the same money. Buy wheat, it is to buy and to sell our bodies, it is out of the human rights, it is a wretched slaver system.

We have all the right to the life as soon as we are born, we have all the right to food without having to pay it.

The food is like air, I have the right to breathe and thus the right to eat without paying. If you do not want me to feed myself without paying my body, so do not put me in the world. Overpopulation has led to this total aberration.

Madam, if your child can not be nourished and nourish himself free, so do not put it to the world.

Is it utopian to suggest doing something that we have already done? Being only a few million human on Earth, that was already done. Why not try to remake it, while improving the material conditions of each one by the tools sophisticated which we will continue to improve?

A little bit humor: Given the amount of water on the planet, there can be at most about 35 000 000 000 000 (35 000-trillion) humans on Earth ... Including a half square meters per person, the surface of the planet is about 509 887 006 000 000 sqm (510 000-trillion m²). I can only assume that there will be some room to move. So let's be optimistic!

Still a little humor: There are about 150,000 deaths per day against 350,000 births, if the number of births fell to stabilize the number of humans, it would mean 200,000 layettes, nappies, etc, of shortfall per day for the industry of the births. It is totally unthinkable. It is better to increase the number of deaths to promote the mortuary industry.

(In my case, it's a joke, and for you?)

The solution of overpopulation is not the depopulation, it is the not-populating. One kills nobody, one does not endanger anybody, one does nothing, i.e. one does not make, ...not any children.

It is theoretically easier to do than doing nothing (let's be profitable). And we do not endanger the lives of others by manufacturing a being who did not ask anything, because "it" has no existence.

To decrease the population to arrive to this perennial value of the human “species” does not want to say to pass by the weapons about seven-billion human beings.

That means that we quietly let die about seven billion people, completely normally and pleasantly if possible, without replacing them as supernumerary functionaries.

That means that one does not oblige to exist seven-billion people to take care of the conservation of conservatism, and that will do as much less to pollute, to suffer, to ask stupid questions about “does the life worth the sorrow”, and to end up dying more or less merrily.

One can reduce to nothing the misery of the human world in one half-century, fifty short years, not even a human life, and all that by doing nothing, absolutely nothing. It is an absolute fact, it's not a hoax, my argument is infallible.

It's worth trying this experiment, is not it? Yet there is one thing to do, one small thing, to transmit what it is necessary not to do, to the whole of the human population…

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (May 2016)

Rationalism and the obligation to exist

Rationalism is a manner of considering the analysis of the world without pitfall for the reason, without obstruction resulting from the person who analyzes the world.

A rationalist is somebody who does not block his future reasoning by an unspecified personal reasoning nor by any other, and coming from any person, reasoning which could lead it in an intellectual dead end, him, but especially of other younger, or less armed people intellectually.

Reason, is to doubt, a rationalist doubts, that been part of the reasoning. But it is not really doubt, it is handing-over in rationalized question, since he knows that the brain, its brain, is not a perfect and reliable mechanism which would have all knowledge and would give a judgement absolutely true.

When a word is said, it is in the context of the brain and the thought of the transmitter, and when this word is heard, it is in the context of the brain and the thought of the receiver. The contexts being differents, why and how and by which miracle would the words have the same meanings?

There are not various currents of rationalism, there is only one. The (real) rationalists never enter into war against the others.

Logic and rationalism should be like mother tongues, they should not be learned later like second languages. A mother tongue is practiced by the meanings. A second language is practiced by synonyms of words and sentences, it's a way of talking differed, difficult to master.

The reason, or rather the reasoning is apprenticeship, if this learning is not made meticulously by educators, the irraison always ends up slipping into a hole.

The rationalist must describe "thought" first, then the universe, the matter, the Life, the society, the human beeing, the person, as accurately as possible.

While this work is done, because he cannot expect the result of this titanic job, the humanistic rationalist (a true rationalist may only be humanist) should tell all that he knows, everything he understood to everyone, because he can not remain insensitive to the suffering of others.

The Rationalist must propose his solution to move progressively from the current social state of the world to the utopian form which he considers, for the society and each human being.

During my study I learned at least this: the thought is based on memory, there is nothing but memory, the feelings are memories, consciousness is memory, all the knowledge and mental functions are memories.

This memory is material, a structural system consisting essentially of neural networks. The thought is thus material.

Free will does not exist, it is impossible, this does not prevent me to understand and write this kind of sentence.

We can build machines, functioning much better than humans, much more efficient, much freer, quasi immortal and without limits of size. Their production is inevitable, as inevitable as a super-weapon, a super-tool, a super-help for humanity.

The animal is a limited machine, the man is an animal that is doomed to disappear by itself by understanding or his ineptitude. He will choose his voluntary arrest if he understands that “freedom to impose” the existence of another person is a paradox in contradiction with the rights and the freedom that he claims for himself.

In what relates to me, me the author, I advise you to depopulate drastically this Earth (the cradle of humankind) of your people, by the simple means of not adding one as long as the planet is not cleaned, that would be moral (then your descendants will see).

And as long as you will not have done it, do not leave great words on morality and humanism, because you would lie. All religions, that want overpopulation and moral at once, are lying shamelessly.

There are as many manners to analyze the world than there are human beings, but there are only three general. These last employ the human ways of thinking, which we all have more or less, that are the reason and imagination, combined with the certainty and uncertainty.

These three ways of analyzing the world are the belief, agnosticism, and rationalism.

Agnosticism is intermediate between belief and rationalism. The agnostic says that all inventions, the myriad of inventions that come out of the human imagination, that are proposed to him, "possibly exist or not". He does not know anything about that and affirms that he does not take position.

An agnostic is a person who understands the explanations of rationalism with regard to the impossibility of gods and the absurdity of religions, but who household a way out for several reasons, whose essential one is that he wants to impose somebody to exist, but has not yet become aware of the paradox of the Human rights.

This paradox is "freedom to impose" the existence to others, which the animal and the idiot make without any reflection. Like the believer, he seeks to rationalize, in a very vague subconscious, the existence and the reasons to impose the existence to others.

Normality is what does, what lives, the majority of humans. Morality is a concept invented by the majority of humans, this concept made to manage social conduct.

When morality contradicts the normality, the habit, it is the normality that takes precedence over morality, to the point that the subject which contradicts morality is ignored, even when it is the most important of the human actions, procreation...

Procreation is immoral, it contradicts the concepts of freedom, it is endangering the lives of others, it is the servitude of others, and it is a crime on others. In procreation one makes another to serve. This is a huge problem in itself, but we add the non-mastery of procreation.

The other is regarded as a servant who will not have any word to say on the body, the intellect, the tutors (parents), the environment, the society, the culture, and the laws. In any case, one will do all to fool it, since one was fooled oneself, and that all will be done so that this submission with the general culture is ignored. What is called the “belief”.

In the belief, there are various contents on planet and according to the epochs, and there is especially this mental function (belief) which is used to restrain its own rationality, and especially that of the others by the submission, the force, the extermination, when they pretend to deny the fairy tales maintained at the highest governmental level.

Is it moral, is it ethical to force somebody to exist, and to force to exist under conditions which you do not control absolutely?

No, it is not moral nor ethical, it is normal, it is completely absurd and thus completely silly for a presumedly intelligent being to manufacture a sensible existence, intelligent, conscious, and mortal, completely stupid and immoral, criminal to manufacture this being without any control, totally in blindness, such Doctor Frankenstein, or a Mengele experimenter.

The idiot or the animals do what their bodies request them, order them, without regard to the other. The idiot creates an existence, starts an existence, and to exonerate himself from the person he rationalizes his actions by inventing twaddles. These twaddles are called religions.

The existence of anything is not subjected to a belief. The existence of something is a fact or not, it is not by a personal decision that the thing exists.

Anyone can accept the existence of anything, but should not in no case be able to impose the belief in this existence and all that follows to anyone. It is not a question of secularity, it is a question of rationality and mental health.

The conscious principle of rationalist is "I know I'm fallible in all areas", unlike the unconscious principle of the believer who is "I am infallible regarding my gods and my sacred book." For the rest, the believer knows how to reason according to its possibilities like the rationalist and the agnostic.

The problem with majority of human is that they have understood that they were except animality, but that they had not understood that they had left there, therefore that they came from there. They rationalized their animal behavior while denying this membership.

If the rationalists are linked by their system of comprehension, it is all the opposite with the beliefs which depend on comprehensions of each one, there are probably as many interpretations and comprehensions of the religions, as there are humans!

The true rationalist thinks that everything enters the field of the rational one, anything does not escape the reason since all is material therefore subject to experimentation. The imaginary one, also called the spiritual one by the believers, is located in the material field of the thought; it is thus a correct subject of analysis.

If I were pessimistic, I would not speak, I would keep silent myself, and I would watch the inevitable. But I make the description of the world of which the man belongs, optimism or pessimism is not rationalist, and I try to be a correct one.

Since I was implied in an action, the action of living, without my agreement, I have obviously the right to request accounts from those which implied me and with their associates, the world society in what relates to me, the world laws allow me there. I mention it by goodness of heart, for those which never thought of making this approach, however so obvious.

This is not luring ourselves that we will change the world. I look at my TV every day. The human ones are in war the ones against the others since always. Why? We could be 7 millions, or better 7 thousands, and live at least correctly though without reason. No, we are over 7 billions and some think to put as many on Mars.

Why, since the life is not useful for nothing? Why create an existence? Why take oneself for god, creator of existences? Why did we invent creative gods? It is simple, to get rid of our culpabilities of creation of existences without reason, on him. After death, all will be regulated! And those who go to hell then?

Because these nice believers have even invented for us a hell to send to it if we contradict them. Why create our existences, if is to threaten us from hell? No life, no risk. Thanks moms, thanks dads, thanks societies and thank you the countless gods invented to stupidly justify the generation of the Life and each life, in particular the human one!

For a rationalist a church is the equivalent of a unicorn stable. Imagine his astonishment. Always, forever, the people brought into the world without their agreement will have a right of inspection on the culture that is poured into their brain.

Is not humanistic (rationalist, agnostic, believing) the one which creates an existence without thinking of the consequences of the creation of this existence, on this existence itself.

Any sentient existence has the right to be born healthy in body and mind. A true humanist, therefore honest humanist, can it ensure that it will create an existence without physical or mental defect? No father, no mother are thus humanists, they only do profess that.

A true rationalist who has not yet asked the question of the obligation to exist has a big gap in his reasoning system, since this question is the first question, concerning the action, and not any action,

the most important action of any human being, that he must ask himself imperatively and even more seriously it involves other, this innocent of which you wish throw the manufacturing without controlling it.

When that implies the mental health and physical of a person, the future being, which does not have its word to say in its existence, a rationalist can he say “I must, for the society (or some other reasons), despite everything, initiate the manufacturing of an existence even if she may suffer all her life.”

Analyze the universe, the world, the human one, the human society, mechanically, technically, logically, rationally, then try to understand how the human being and the society can be integrated appreciably, emotionally, with this description, leads to an aporia.

The reason and the life do not go together, and yet the life invented the reason.

The Human rights come from the human sensitivity and a reason which did not go at the end of its reasoning. “The creation of an existence serves only those which already exist. However nobody controls this manufacturing made blind.”

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (May 2016)