Maybe he meant that the only reason us deluded natalists could fail to see the "illusion of happiness" and the reality of harm is because we feel good about "imposing" it. I've expressed my reasons for disagreeing, so I won't repeat myself here. There are certainly some harms (such as studying hard) necessary for greater goods (like the satisfaction of passing), but I would not say that they always play an indelible role, particularly in things such as meaningful relationships. But I allegedly lack "understanding", so I am sure you will find more compelling explanations.

Btw, my phone still doesn't feel like quoting replies lol.

Quite a terrible consequence indeed ;)

Yeah, the case for the falsity of antinatalism is certainly closed ;)

The no-so-tricky part is that:

1. The lack of happiness is benefitting nobody. This is a fact.

2. "No collateral damage" is happening to nobody. This is a fact.

These are the actual facts on the ground. Now, the reality is:

The lack of "collateral damage" cannot be considered preferable or good, since its absence does not incur any benefits onto an actual person.

The fact is: the state of affairs of happiness is not taking place. Nobody feels great about the lack of damage either.

There's definitely a lot of losing in the second state of affairs. If the absence of the harms is good even if it doesn't help an actual person, the lack of happiness is also bad, irrespective of whether or not someone is there to express their desire to have it. This is the simple and necessarily consistent case, and I think that it is a better representation of reality than the flawed one provided by antinatalism.

Maybe it is not so "personal" after all :D

"A dynamical balance"

Excuse me, but when did I share my personal diary with you? ;)

Exactly! People tend to gravitate from one extreme to another these days. I think it's necessary to have a balanced perspective.

Agreed. Unbridled individualism can blind us.

Nobody is fundamental indeed, because the distinction between everybody and nobody isn't as easy to make. For us, eternity is certainly a characteristic of the ultimate reality, though it's also dynamic. ;)

It was "I", but it really wasn't anybody in a fundamental sense. However, it's impossible to live one's life not interacting with the world as it appears to us. The illusion is certainly quite real.

Perhaps we cannot look truly "look" at us from a bird's eye view because there isn't any possibility of a duality in perspective. Advaita: Not two :)

The self is certainly an illusion, at least in terms of the perception of separation. We generally believe in ultimate unity.

Disagreements in an illusory world do not truly matter, so no worries ;)

I also hope that you will not spend the rest of your life living a lie. As for me, I would not wish to be myopic enough to let my hardships change the truth. But thanks for your kind words. I made the choice to look beyond my biases a long time ago. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours!

An illusory collapse is fun, but not as fun as the actual collapse of the arguments that have been presented here for antinatalism, which remains a flawed ideology. Happiness is real, btw.

Mistaking the reality for an illusion, as expected.

My दृष्टी appears to be more व्यापक than yours. Samyak gyana is also quite important. It's amusing to use these Jain terminologies, considering they also believe in rebirth, which makes antinatalism utterly pointless (there are other deeds besides a lack of procreation that are necessary in their view). Also:
"Real happiness is a matter of experience, not of speech, not of demonstration. It can be had only by being introvert, cutting ourselves from all the non-self entities and being one with our soul itself. Since the soul is full of happiness, experience of the soul is the experience of happiness. Just as one cannot achieve the soul without experience, in the same manner one cannot get real happiness without the experience of the soul."
—Jainworld.com
Happiness might indeed be real if one has the right perspective.

The inability to look at things that are ineffably meaningful is certainly tragic.

Thankfully, not everyone is carrying counterfeit coins. Again, you failed to understand my viewpoint.

Despite everything, so am I :)

Mistaking consistency to be change. Strange, but not unexpected.

I would have to continue to repeat the truth, irrespective of what others might think about it. You're in (in my view) the dark about reality. It's tragic to live a life permeated by such a humungous lie, but I can only explain the reality to you; I cannot understand it for you. Happiness is real. All you know is your single-minded concern with one side of the coin, which has undoubtedly been ingrained by factors I am not aware of. Still, I am sorry they happened.

Better to use a hat than to talk from a page that does not exist. Thank you for your insightful comments, and I hope you have a wonderful day ahead!

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUK149681263220111102

I missed your claim about natalism being "wicked". Well, I am sorry that you are not able to see the truth. Antinatalism is deeply sad and fundamentally flawed (this conversation has only lent further credence to that idea). However, you're clearly an intelligent and compassionate person, so I would not say that the view is inherently idiotic. It does remain limited. Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your thoughtful perspective.

I do. But you don't know what happiness is.

An amazing ability to describe oneself that's tragically marred by a small grammatical mistake where you is used instead of "me".

Let's talk about "not understanding".

Your reply was the ROFL emoji.
Definition of ROFL emoji: Rolling on Floor Laughing emoji
Also know as the ROFL emoji, it depicts a smiling face crying tears of joy while leaning to one side, as if rolling over with uncontrollable laughter. It is used to mark anything that is extremely hilarious.

Hilarious things are things that amuse us. Amusing things, in turn, entertain us. Entertainment is usually based upon things that aren't real and are funny. Arguments are generally not funny. Therefore, it would be reasonable to presume that you thought my reply deserved to be treated facetiously even though you did not bother to write an actual refutation.

In light of this, I replied with what I considered to be an apposite response—one that did not have much to do with the topic at hand, but instead had a lot to do with projections. You asked why I keep using the emoji if I found it mysterious. I replied that I find joy in doing so. Apparently that was impossible for you to understand. Putting on a blindfold and then complaining about the lack of sunlight is not a hallmark of comprehensive thinking.

Malthus' predictions were quite pessimistic, something that is relevant to your concerns about overpopulation. However, he was wrong because we did not witness the sort of mass famines that many pessimists had predicted. Your response makes me think that you don't understand what understanding means, just as you don't know happiness even when it is right in front of you.

Because of the satisfaction mystery brings.

"My reaction to Malthus being proven wrong, much like many other historical pessimists" ;)

I wouldn't wish to miss the glorious station due to the mist of doom and gloom. I do expect things to turn bad, but I also believe that they can turn better. You have always underestimated the positives, and your rationalisations pertaining to the value of happiness show that, but there is certainly truth in what you say regarding the need to address harms urgently.

Neither do I. It's truly enigmatic.

There certainly are risks, and that's why I believe that we should not mindlessly procreate (as many do) without addressing issues such as climate change.

Despite that, people are quite resilient and happiness can often be found even in the face seemingly insuperable odds. Love in relationships, beauty in art, and ectasy in music amongst other things have continued to remain invaluable for many people.

As long as we work together, I am reasonably optimistic that we can overcome our difficulties.
The recent progress in Italy regarding the RTD and pledges by countries to cut emissions are good steps, though we obviously need to do more. I don't have a (new) family, and my life does not matter.

Illusion about nonexistent illusions.

Repetition can also imply a desperation to defend a view that seems to be flawed. As for truth, well, it would still be true that happiness is as real as suffering, even if many people fell prey to the illusion that it isn't.

Probably not, but I wouldn't want to be too sure.

Ultimately good world. The truth doesn't have to be repeated multiple times for its truth value to remain. I hope you would have expanded your wisdom in a decade from now ;)

You're the one who committed a fallacy twice which further undermines your already undermined position.

Also, I think one could also add the double standards fallacy for treating happiness and suffering differently without really justifying it.

Your understanding of the deepest aspects of existence appears to be lacking. I hope that can change.

I wasn't saying that you're a sadist or anything. It was more of a fantasy. However, you obfuscate things that don't need be obfuscated.

Another example of the fallacy fallacy without adequate justification. Might be a new record.

If believing happiness is an illusion and that satisfaction is not happiness gives you satisfaction that you refuse to acknowledge, so be it. It could be better, but it will suffice.

But I suppose I should address your "fallacies" here:

Red Herring: Replying to quotes that have not been explained is not a distraction.

Shifting the goalposts: Asking for intuitive consistency is not changing the criterion.

I am confused about plenty of things, sure :)

Here, however, I was referring to a mirror I just bought ;)

But it's not impossible! Ergo, happiness!

Who said it's easy? Another confusion on the horizon! Jk

Yes, it is. I am afraid that your understanding of satisfaction is incomplete, perhaps due to certain actual limitations. Whatever you perceive satisfaction to be, I don't think it's a real representation of what it is.
Reality and ease don't need to be the same.

Yes, it is. If you think otherwise, then what you call satisfaction is a rather poor imitation of it. I hope I could suffer for a day if that allowed you to see things differently.

You could, but I don't think you would be right.

Satisfaction is happiness, and that's what my lived experience and the experiences of many around me shows.

It is happiness, but you're in denial here. I suppose one could also say that mental agony is not suffering because I define suffering in an extremely narrow way, but that does not help because it does not accurately reflect reality.

I do; it's you who don't. Actually, you do. However, your need for satiating detrimental skepticism seems to be unfulfilled, which might be contributing towards your inability to see that which is (probably) obvious.

Your idea of happiness is limited then. As I said, an illusion about illusions. You do experience satisfaction, but you don't take realise that/misunderstand it. Good things are generally complex. There are probably moments when a person is actually happy but mistakenly think they are not. Satisfaction can truly be wonderful, but contributing towards the genesis of a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't useful.

As always, I don't think I did. You meant to say that you showed me a mirror, and I deliberately changed that into you being my mirror image yourself. A bit of fun goes a long way :p

Too egotistical for me. Thanks for the advice, a slightly misled version of "myself" ;)

"Same to you"

Much appreciated!

I never said that you didn't (except for a few deliberately flippant comments). However, you also do experience satisfaction. It's just that you're in denial about its existence, which is probably turning this situation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Happiness is quite real.

Satisfaction of flexibility—delighful stuff.

Your idea about happiness being an illusion is itself an illusion, my friend.

Certainly. I would finally know the truth and defeat any possibility of lies. It couldn't get better than that. However, after all these years, I am almost certain it isn't.

That's my reaction to antinatalists I debated on reddit who were claiming that AN is "bulletproof".

In itself, provided it's true, it is perfect. However, the perfection of rationality entails being open to multiple possibilities. Truly wonderful.

I didn't, especially considering that it's nigh impossible to reply to quotes without context. But sure, I digress.

Is your perspective flawless?