Suppose there were a pill that killed instantly, should parents be allowed to bring children into the world if the children were allowed to take that pill at any time?

Surely that would be in accordance with your logic? — SolarWind

No, procreation isn't justified with faster ways to commit suicide. It's like a game that you start for someone else, and death is an escape. The very fact that you have to do this harm of death, is enough reason not to start the game for that person. It is quite presumptuous to assume, "Well, you'll just endure it.. death is your only option". Something wrong about that. Never existing and existing and then dying are two very different cases.

@Echarmion about what that other guy said..."We could start an interminable series of threads sneeringly implying that anyone thinking the opposite "just doesn't get it" for 27 pages before finally admitting it's just a personal feeling without any objective validity. That might work...

But again, @khaled and I have been agreeing with this sentiment.. It's debatable, hence we are debating. I think it's kinda rich that you are implying rhetorical tactics of "we are already correct", when you and that other guy do exactly that yourself. Pot calling kettle black.

The quintessential problem here is that if I don't agree that this is absurd, there is no further basis for discussion. You think it's absurd, I think it's rather reasonable. Insightful, even. I suppose many of the people who disagree feel the same. There is no easy way to bridge that conceptual chasm. — Echarmion

Yes agreed that you think it makes sense and we think it doesn't, and think it not insightful or helpful at all. I gave an extreme example for example, that if a baby was born into torture, and we prevented this, we wouldn't go ahead and say, "Well, it didn't exist to know that it wasn't tortured". That harm was prevented is what matters. No one needs to be around to know that this is the case. Don't cause conditions of suffering unto another, unless you are trying to get a person (already existing) out of a worse off situation and you try to get permission, if it's possible. Certainly in the case of birth, there is no need in the first place to get someone out of a "worse" situation, and certainly one cannot ask the future person retroactively. This is a case where this is completely unnecessary unlike some contingencies of people who ALREADY exist and you have to make a judgement call without permission, etc. etc. et al, conversations already had.. point to those arguments etc etc. in finitum.

This is obviously a comparison of existence with non-existence. In this comparison, non-existence does not win over existence, but the comparison is invalid.

What is wrong with my argument? — SolarWind

Because of the way you formulated it. It is about the parent making the decision that affects someone negatively. Don't do it. It doesn't matter that there is no person who is the recipient of not being affected negatively. Otherwise, you have the absurd idea that in order for us to realize harm is bad, someone needs to be born, so we can then say, "See harm is bad!".

Of course I read it. Nevertheless, everything depends on the evaluation of self-non-existence.
If self-non-existence is like hell, then you save someone from that hell by bringing him into life.

A personal question, how do you imagine death, are you afraid of it? — SolarWind

I don't really understand the context, now. I thought you were trying to do the same thing all the other people are doing.. "No person exists at the time of the decision to procreate, so no one is being affected!" Or "No person will know that they were being prevented from harm!".

What you are saying is odd. Non-existence is non-existence. No subjective point of view of an individual. Existence in the "birth" sense, is some sort of point of view of that organism. There is no metaphysical entity that exists prior to its birth.

Are we? What is being "traded" exactly? This is at the core of the disagreement here, that one side views life as an option, like a game or some other activity, while the other side is saying that this isn't so, as nonexistence is not actually an alternative. — Echarmion

@khaled and I have been saying over and over how making a decision that affects someone in the future, still affects someone in the future. Your argument is specious.

Someone is either affected negatively, or no one is affected negatively. The fact that someone is affected negatively is what we are pointing to. Antinatalists are saying, don't do that. It matters not that the alternative is "no person exists".

Further, Khaled explains over and over how when we "do" cause negative harm, usually it's because of some instrumental reason where the person being harmed is already in a negative situation, and there needs to be some amelioration of this. This is not the case with birth, where there is no person already deprived of something that needs to be ameliorated out of a situation.

Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"... — Inyenzi

Good point.

Point being the experience of suffering isn't erased or negated - it was still endured. — Inyenzi

Exactly.

And who am I to impose this "trade-off" on another person? I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it". — Inyenzi

Yep.

Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? How wouldn't this be immoral? What's the difference between me instilling an extra sense upon you, and instilling the (traditional) 5 senses upon a fetus? — Inyenzi

Yep. The only thing they are going to keep doing is make the move to say, "But they don't exist yet, so you can cause anything to happen, because as of the decision, there is no "them" yet". As if this negates that the decision will affect someone in the future. It's mind boggingly bad argumentation, stuck on self-righteous "case closed" ignorance.

In this "neutral" lies the problem. If death is self-non-existence, how are we to imagine it? Seeing nothing and hearing nothing? But the perception of blackness and silence is also a perception. One has to imagine this perception away too.

It is not the same as a dreamless sleep, because one can speak of that after awakening. Personally, I find the indefinable self-non-existence frightening and not neutral. — SolarWind

So did you read the two reformulations that I wrote below this? I purposely added that in anticipation of this kind of objection. Benatar takes a view that prevention of harm is always good, even if there are no subjective entities to know this. The reformulations below this reformulate this for people who do not have this point of view of the absolute "goodness" of "no harm".

Not sure what you mean. Term limits in Congress will equalize the playing field for who gets leadership position, motivate people to vote for the interest of the people rather than just the base, allow for new ideas, and is simply more democratic. If you don't like the person, you know they won't be there long anyways. I think the term limits should be 8 years (4 terms) for House, and 12 years (2 terms) for Senate.

Edit:
I rather the it be 4 years (2 terms) for the House and 6 years (1 term) for the Senate, but I'm sure people will think there needs to be the motivation for another shot at the position. I just think this will weed out ambition over actually doing it to help the country. I think the drawbacks of the "chaos" of always changing hands, is minimal compared to the current impact of the stagnation of career politicians and constantly having to pander to the base in decisions.

Copper/metallic wires pulsing up and down, off and on, the harnessing of this...Electrical power stations, all that..

If one day you woke up 30000 dollars richer and later found that it happened because I pressed the button 30 times without telling you, I think you would be furious at me. I risked harming you. And this is EVEN IF you would have personally pressed the button 50 times. — khaled

Excellent point. It deals with affecting ANOTHER person.

It is possible they’ll be selfish assholes despite your efforts. We have plenty of selfish assholes in the world with parents who had good intentions. — khaled

:rofl:. Trump would not be a case of this though.. He was bred from the start to be an asshole it seems. But he sure took it to the next level.

Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it — khaled

Prize for most succinct framing of a very basic and intuitive concept that people are doing summersaults to try to bypass.

Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. And don’t go back to the “actually having kids doesn’t harm anyone” BS. We already know there are problems with that, such as not being able to say malicious genetic engineering, or kidnapping people to forests is wrong (since technically neither harms, only creates conditions, but then again, same with shooting people in the face, since the gun might jam) — khaled

And you have to repeat this yet again.. I hope it sinks in this time!

A public election fund would help. Doesn't at all eliminate the problem of lobbying and post-political careers, but it at least makes the actual election finance independent. — Echarmion

True. I think we mix democracy with free markets. Rich people and corporate entities being able to back a candidate through soft money is not the same as "democracy". The same goes for career politicians. It's like a monopoly. In theory, someone can compete but it's very hard when they are already entrenched with the party and "brand". So again, free market strategy and democratic strategy are not the same, and often they are confused.

Right now? Term limits were big news from 1992-1994 and the 22nd amendment passed in 1951. Old news... — LuckyR

I'm not sure what a past debate that didn't work out has to do with it still not being worth debate now.

Politics is the one area where acquiring work experience is considered to lead to a lesser work product. Completely illogical. Imagine using the same thought process to pick a surgeon. "Oh, you've hardly performed this procedure before, I'll pick you to cut me open." Ridiculous. — LuckyR

Yes, because politics has brought us to a glorious place right now...

No need to invoke the Interweb, this sort of "dilemma" could have been made when agriculture was invented. Did every town dweller understand what went into the food they ate? Likely not. But that isn't the point. Tools free up time for folks to think about things other than sustenance, such as art, culture etc. — LuckyR

Yes, this is true. The principle is the same in regards to human limited efficacy.

2) There is no rebirth. Then one is non-existent before and after life. One compares existence with non-existence. This comparison is impossible. Mathematically speaking: Is 42 greater or less than 0/0? — SolarWind

No, not exactly what's going on. One way to answer this is the Benatarian Asymmetry argument.

Essentially his idea is that if there is no actual person, not experiencing good is neither good nor bad (as there is no "one" to be deprived). It is neutral. However, if there is no actual person, not experiencing bad is a good thing, even if there is no one to benefit from that good.

Now, you do not have to agree to that formulation for that to work. You can just say this:

1) IFF there is a capacity to cause unnecessary harm to a future person, do not go ahead and cause this this for that future person, as causing unnecessary harm is in and of itself wrong. There is no collateral damage of "no good" because no actual person exists for to be deprived of good.

Similarly..

2) IFF a person is born, that birth automatically was an event that was non-consensual. Do not cause this violation of the individual born to occur.

Similarly...

3) IFF there is a capacity to cause unnecessary impositions to a future person, do not go ahead and cause this for that future person, as causing unnecessary impositions on behalf of another person is in and of itself wrong. There is no collateral damage of "no good" because no actual person exists for to be deprived of good.

But Is that really so? People throughout history have climbed the ladder of culture. An individual does not have to comprehend culture in its entirety to benefit from it, or contribute to it. Your description suggests a schism between the individual and the (social) world (s)he inhabits.

"You imply disparity where none exists" — Pantagruel

But there is.. I clearly explained the disparity between what one uses and what one knows about what one uses. "It works!" just doesn't end the story of how one is interacting. One is precariously relying on some much superstructure that one only tangentially and in a surface level knows. Akin to "knowing" a person or an animal, you would have to be with it for many days, listen to it, get its background, how it operates, etc. But you can never know modern technology fully. Minutia builds walls of more minutia and minutia and minutia.....It's a game of minutia built for others to use, or fix, and the realm of what one knows how to fix or create, is limited, let alone just the user who works with it as a final product.

knowledge of creating a microprocessor as within a networking expert's field — Tom1352

Yet its quite necessary for that field and they don't know how it works to the same degree :).

But others whose field it concerns will know such information and yet both are necessary to the much broader field of computing. — Tom1352

Right.. and my point is not to stick to one domain.. but quite the opposite that we never have the full picture nor really can we.

I certainly agree this can have an alienating effect, but thinking as such is by no means rational, given my earlier point. — Tom1352

Not sure what would be rational or not in this context.

Emptied of the symbols that give a moral sense to work, commerce, savings, social order, law and even personal relationships, to what capitalism is reduced but to that terminal “raw capitalism” which, according to Marx, should immediately announce and precede the advent of socialism? But, since the socialist economy is impossible in its integral form and viable only in the hybrid form of the fascist economy (with that or another name), what is that it prevents raw capitalism from eternalizing, and that it does so precisely by replacing the old cultural symbols by the new simulacrum industry? Who doesn't realize that this is precisely the world we live in today, both in Beijing and in New York?

Take for instance the sporadic concessions to the demands of the “politically correct” - as in the past to those of the Party's “fair line”, which is exactly the same thing - are not enough to completely ruin a novel, a film, a play; but when these demands become mandatory and ubiquitous, they end up violating the most elementary laws of verisimilitude and thus destroy the very possibility of narrative art.
That is why today's cinema mainly seeks an audience of teenagers, in which the demand for verisimilitude yields easily to the urge for strong sensations. The verisimilitude judgment depends essentially on maturity, on the “experience of life”. — Rafaella Leon

Communism doesn't solve the problem.. You are still the stooge of the state rather than coordinated capital networks. It is the problem of life itself being a social animal. Try out antinatalism.. it's a much more comprehensive solution ;).

Per my comment, we don't need to understand technology to use it - and yet technology is really a kind of hypostatization or reification of knowledge, knowledge made tangible. — Pantagruel

But then you are just a captive of either your own ability to survive on your own or the structures of all these networks of technology. You are a captive either way.

And I would like to emphasize "captive".

One of the most fascinating descriptions of the interaction of mind and matter that I have encountered, the junction point of symbolic instrumentality and instrumental symbolicity I guess you could say. — Pantagruel

Can you define those terms in layman's speak :D? I have not read prior definitions that would make me understand it any better than if I just made it up and nodded my head..

That's another thing about any new piece information.. It's a good idea to scaffold using prior knowledge to get the other person to understand fully what you mean, otherwise talking past each other will ensue.

Sure, there are certain perspectives as stated which there are individually relevant facts towards but in terms of how a particular technology works itself it is evidently possible for one person to know how a technology works. — Tom1352

Yes that's why I said in theory.. but I don't know about that.. Even engineers and professors of technology (let's say networking) usually specialize and cannot possibly know every avenue in every part of that field, but they know enough. For example, I doubt the networking expert knows how to create a microprocessor from scratch, and if so, doubtful the kind for modern computing (in other words, knows the general concepts.. but not everything).

Also, I am not arguing that the millions of individual efforts don't contribute to the whole. Rather, it is more the alienation for a large percentage (and I can argue even the experts) from knowing all of what sustains them. This is championed as progress, and we are told similar themes to your posts, that this is a good thing that we all have our place, but it is simply one more aspect of "modern" reality that is actually alienating for the individual who must navigate the modern world.

Updated the OP.

It amazes me that "working class" voters would vote for Trump.. a spoiled rich kid..

Every time I bring Trump's corruption, someone points to Democrats being "just as corrupt" and that politicians are all corrupt, and that the Washington insiders just didn't like Trump cause he wasn't an insider. I can't emphasize the hand on face emoji enough.

See, we do disagree. Either way, we agree that people shouldn't assume either one for their child: the lived experience or the remembered experience.

Unlimited money in politics would still mean that ideas that aren't supported by monied interests get way less exposure. And this would lead to them being less likely to be adopted, even if everyone's integrity was flawless. — Echarmion

Yeah, I agree with that.. It is the end result of exactly the perceptions people have that will happen if candidates are backed by these interests..

So what is the solution? Public elections?

One doesn't actually need to conclude that the candidate is beholden to the source of the money. It'd be sufficient to observe that only candidates which can raise sufficient money have a chance to win, and you wouldn't spend your money on someone who supports things you dislike. — Echarmion

I'm not sure about that.. Look at US Democratic Party.. Moderate Democrats like Hillary and Biden have a perception problem with their stated liberal goals, and their backers, etc..I want to even say, it is those type of perception problems that lead people to (falsely and stupidly) go with someone like Trump who they think can't be bought.. (except by Russia and anybody that gives him a compliment hehe).

The summative evaluation for me. If they don’t consider it a problem as a whole then why should I? And how do you aggregate these moments anyways? You’re suggest some sort of objective measure of “worthwhile ness” which is different from the guy simply telling you it was worthwhile. — khaled

Well, I'm thinking this type of thing (1-10 scale). Let's say, worthwhile is 6 or above. :
Hours:
H1: 2
H2: 4
H3: 3
H4: 7

etc. etc.. and if aggregated, it looks like it's below a 6, but when asked to sum later on it is an 8 or something. I'm just saying sometimes there are biases even in answering a question like that due to social expectations, forgetting each moment actually felt, etc. You could say that this "forgetting" then clears out the bad that was experienced prior, but I don't know.

Why do people have a perception that politicians are corrupt in terms of monied interests? What would help this perception or reality?

I don't agree. I think if we know the person in question will find their life worthwhile then it's fine. Problem is we don't. — khaled

I think it's hard to assess. A lot of times if each moment was aggregated, it would not be considered worthwhile, even to the same person when interviewed, may say "yes" in a summative way. There may be some disconnect with how people actually evaluate/experience in the moment vs. when asked to sum things up. What to trust?

If donating to your candidate means that that candidate is now beholden to you, your candidate can be bought. Why are you donating to them? Someone with more money can buy them away from your interests. Seems like a very bankrupt system. I would support electoral reform that would limit, and equalize, the amount each party could spend on advertising. Included in that limit would be third party advertising. Make the candidate win votes, not brainwash the electors. May the best candidate win, not the one willing to drop the most cash. That would also greatly reduce the influence, perceived or real, that contributors had on a candidate.

Granted, it will likely never happen, but imagine if each party only had a million dollar limit for an election. Any election. The candidate would have to actually inspire people to have themselves be remembered at the polls. Those candidates might actually make a great government. — Book273

Yep. Public elections perhaps? How would that work? Would that be limiting in the other way?

A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool

Okay, so besides the semantics.. maybe let's just say.. is it a freedom to put one's money into a candidate one likes.. even it makes that politician liable to pander to such backers?

I think the only thing you can do with someone like that is ask them how often they inflict suffering on non-dependents because it “makes them better”. They probably never do. Which makes it highly dubious that they actually believe what they say they believe — khaled

Yes, there seems to be this weird idea of destiny or inevitability (that isn't justified) that people "need" to experience life, partly due to the idea that they can overcome their suffering by learning to go from less ideal to more ideal states. Why not skip the whole game on someone else's behalf? I guess, my question to them is, why do they think it is justified to impose this game on someone else?

I also have a notion, you may disagree with, that existence short of being an ideal existence, would be one where someone should not be born into. I'm not sure what to say to people who then make the move to say, "But an imperfect existence of going from non-ideal to more ideal is the ideal existence". That seems like a disingenuous move to make, but if it is truly believed, then the nagging axiomatic understanding that starting unnecessary impositions on others is always wrong, hard stop, whether you think it is some great game or not. I just don't get how people can justify their way around that.

I don’t think those are the same thing. I agree with the latter not the former. I agree that there is value of getting out of a less ideal state to a more idea state, and that that is preferable to not suffering at all (heck, I don’t think this is possible). — khaled

Yes, it is assuming that someone else should be put in some sort of game of going from less ideal to more ideal state. It is affecting someone else, not yourself.

But the interlocutor is going to say that the value of overcoming the deprivation is what matters, not the principle of "not putting others in the game of suffering in the first place". To the contrary, that is one of the "goods" of life, the accomplishment of overcoming challenges. Thus they think they are not inflicting suffering, because a greater good will come out of it.

I guess my question then becomes, is there a principle outside of statistical possibility that they won't come out of it better, that this is wrong? I would say putting someone purposefully in a deprivation to make them come out of it better, is always a wrong, either because of non-consent or because you simply don't put people in impositions unnecessarily, period. It is just a hard axiomatic stop.

The analogy to prove the point would be similar to the game argument.. You don't kidnap someone into a game and say, "Hey, you're going to thank me when it's over! You're going to love all the challenges and harms because it makes you better!". But there is something wrong with that besides simply non-consent to the game. Something a bit more foundational to be used in such a way, and the paternalistic presumption.

@khaled
What do you think of people who say that people need to be born into non-ideal circumstances so they "strive" to do better, and get themselves to more ideal circumstances? In other words, they think that the value of getting out of a less ideal state to a more ideal state is a goal above and beyond not suffering? The suffering is "worth it" because one feels the accomplishment of getting out of the non-ideal circumstances?

Edit: The new person needs this experience it, which means the "need" to be born for this experience as it is above and beyond suffering.

Seeing as you are happy reaffirming your view with schopenhauer1, I think I'll leave it at that. This discussion has gone on a long while, and I think we're past the point where any of us will learn anything. — Echarmion

Don't use me as an escape hatch.. I've also been patient :D.

The more sophisticated versions will speak as if they are the representative of a club or team, "WE think it is really good to be alive, and you shouldn't prevent another person because they will want to join the team too!"

I forgot about “If they don’t like it they can just kill themselves so it’s fine”. That’s gotta be the worst. Strange what can come out of otherwise rational people’s mouths when this is the topic. — khaled

Yep, agreed 100%.

Simple and straightforward. I like it. The standard argument against this is either “It’s not a mess” (false, it very much can be) or “But we need to” (False, outright). Or the worst “It’s fine to get people in messes because they don’t exist yet” which is ridiculous and can easily be dismantled with the malicious genetic engineering example or the forced to play a game example. — khaled

Yes, this is pretty much all of these arguments in a nutshell.

"Actual action"? What was the action that got people in the mess that they have to get out of? Tail wagging dog. The presumption is.. First it is okay to put someone in the mess.. and it is only okay after the fact, and not question whether it is okay to put someone in the mess in the first place.

What I find astonishing is the amount of Pollyannaism with pro-natalism camp. Many of them think only in best case scenarios, without thinking of the worst case, or even just the actual amounts of suffering and harm that occur in a prototypically "normal" life. And then once this point of how much harm is actually present is brought up, they retreat to things like, "What is suffering really?" or "Suffering is not bad because it provides, meaning. Don't you see!". And then they claim they just "can't" understand the antinatalist's claims. I think they are either deluding themselves (less likely), have such a strong bias that they can't get beyond their own point of view, or most likely, they are being intellectually dishonest with how much they actually indeed do understand (intuitively) the arguments. It's just hard to understand the objections especially since you keep reiterating the same thing again and again.

Also the approach with antinatalism seems to be burn down the house with everyone in it too. Instead of acknowledging that you have some damn good ideas there and that there may be some exceptions, the ruse is to be completely "incredulous" and disapproving out of the gate so to make the whole argument seem species. It's a rhetorical tactic. Where do you think people learn this? Just kind of comes naturally to some? Picked up from seeing others? Taught somewhere?