GO Schopenhauer1!!! — Bitter Crank

No problem. Thanks for the shout out :grin: .

Should we all start donating money to schopenhauer1 and maybe he can convince the rest of the world? — ZhouBoTong

Any donations to the Schopenhauer1 Fund are appreciated :grin: .

The evidence is that you're using "primary" in the sense of a preference or goal, but preferences and goals are only things that individual persons have. They're mental phenomena. Things like rivers, say, do not have preferences or goals, they do not have mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

My guess is he is going to say that natural phenomena have a "final causation" which is different kind of thing than a human goal. So, each natural phenomena is trying to "reach" some "end" and this "reaching" is in its nature. Thus, doing something that impedes this nature is immoral because it is "unnatural".


My critique here is that Darwinism doesn't work like that. This is assuming huge ontological beliefs that are not justified by how evolution and emergence works. Accidental changes to a phenomena become useful, otherwise the species dies out. Differential survival rates based on initial variation is the basic mechanism. The designs were bootstrapped from previous designs and they happened to work for a particular function of survival. Final causation then is a misattribution of what is going on. If the adaptations work to support the organism, it stays. However, with environmental changes, it may prove to be useless or even detrimental. That has nothing to do with evolution "reaching ends". It is more statistical and contingent than that.

However, you are also making a huge category mistake. Human minds don't have ends outside the goals that we individually make. Thus my end can be whatever it is I have decided. Now that does not mean I am saying, thus anything should go. Clearly being an antinatalist, I think that some principles have moral worth more than others. For example, forcing others to play your game, causing harm when there needs to exist no harm is not good, I believe to be important principles, for example.

Thats false in the way I used the word. And I specifically added 'telos' as well. We already discussed that the eyes are for seeing, the heart for pumping - in which you made no objection. Unless you desire to take Hume's approach of causation, I see no reason for you to object either. — Riley

So, again, I think you're making a naturalistic fallacy here. Just because we have capacities to reproduce, why should we? That huge loose end hasn't been tied. Also, if we as creatures of "nature" have the ability to not reproduce, what makes that unnatural? You may need a good dose of Sartre and the existentialists. We are condemned to be free. Tying yourself to some Idea (like Natural Law), is just a decision on your part. We are not dictated by nature as what to do, because we have capacities that are derived from nature. That is indeed a naturalistic fallacy. I agree to some extent that we have a human nature, but human nature is of a broad extent- we have needs and wants that are universal, but to what specific actions we take to satisfy them, it is pretty numerous. There is no one action that nature dictates is the "right" action.

That just sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me. — khaled

You already stated what I was going to. Incidentally, did you see my post about the growth-through-adversity and undue suffering idea?

@khaled I have this idea that this world can be characterized as "growth-through-adversity coupled with undue harm".

Growth-through-adversity is defined by challenges faced by someone in order to attain a particular goal. For most people this at least involves survival/work along with goals involving entertainment/family-pursuits outside of survival/work.

Undue harm would be overriding illnesses, circumstances, accidents, disasters, etc. that otherwise would not be asked for outside the usual growth-through-adversity.

To be concise in these posts I am going to call growth-through adversity GTA and undue harm UH.

The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". There is no escape from it outside suicide. But no one asks why this is good for someone who doesn't exist in the first place to put this reality onto a new person. Oddly, the parent is an existential missionizer force-recruiting new people who, like religious families tend to do, try to enculturate the new recruit into identifying with the GTA-UH model so as not to regret being recruited.

But what do you use to justify what it is you decide to prioritize?

I'd say only the latter, since only people who are born and who have developed mentally a bit have notions of what counts as suffering. — Terrapin Station

But that is not even the debate when starting a life. The debate is, if you start the life then indeed you have foisted some version of what is good for someone else be de facto having them born. By not having them, there is no version of what is good for someone else foisted. So yeah, that is a different category than someone who is already born and you are dictating to them what is suffering or not. I disagree with you on both accounts. It is not good to decide for someone else that they will be harmed (antinatalism), and after they are born, it is wrong to determine what they should feel is harmed (but I agree perhaps that this is more for an adult human as decisions should be made for those who are not developmentally able to maneuver the social mechanisms of society).

Again, this isn't about antinatalism specifically, but I see it more as "One's attributions of what counts as suffering should not dictate what anyone else is required to do a la needing to make sure that you don't experience what you count as suffering." — Terrapin Station

Okay, are you applying that to the principle of starting a life (antinatalism debate) or someone who is already born (not antinatalism debate)? If it is the first or both, then it is an antinatalism debate.

You'd only do that if you basically insist that everything has to relate back to the initial topic/subject of the thread. — Terrapin Station

I'll gladly move on from that particular line of reasoning. It makes no sense to believe that one's own interpretation of suffering should dictate another's life so, yeah I'd gladly accept that you are not talking about that, because that might mean you actually take that position. Of course if it is, then the topic focuses on antinatalism again. But as you admitted, that particular reasoning is not about antinatalism.

You may have some personal restriction that everything you say in a thread has to have some relation to the initial post of the thread or the thread title, but I don't. At least half of the time I don't even have any idea what thread I'm posting in, because I really couldn't care less. I prefer chatting. I have no personal restrictions that we have to stick with some topic so that every post, every comment (in every post) has to relate to that topic somehow. — Terrapin Station

I'm fine with a thread going in various directions. I don't necessarily have anything against that. What I do have something against is what khaled was implying in several posts back when you are talking about something else, and then you all of a sudden use that comment to talk about the topic at hand, thus you can always weave in and out and say, "no I wasn't using that argument for that topic then, but now I am". Which is more than a bit dodgy.

I wasn't talking about that at all when I made the comment about my opinion of what's called "suffering."

You can't stop thinking about it, so you interpreted my comment as if that's what it's about. — Terrapin Station

What broader thing are you talking about? This debate has always been in the context of antinatalism. It's even the name of the thread. That is the subtext of all these sub-debates. Don't try conning me into thinking this isn't to some extent about antinatalism in some way, as that is where this whole conversation came from and leads to, whatever tangents we take in the meantime. I'm keeping it on point and the point I'm trying to make is that if we are talking about antinatalism, we do have to consider that the debate is whether a life is "worth starting" rather than "continuing" or in a state of "already-existing". People are making that category error in their analogies, and their characterization of the antinatalist position.

You said:

You contradicted yourself in your confused response as well, in one instance denying any possible consideration of the person to be (they arent born yet) then turning around (in other posts) and allowing that consideration (how they will suffer as a person after being born) when it supports your argument. — DingoJones

and

Yes it is. That is exactly what you are doing. You have made a subjective evaluation about suffering, and are arguing against and morally condemning other people (parents/would be parents) based on that evaluation (foist number one), in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2). — DingoJones

I am not foisting anything on the parent. Foisting is forcing someone to do something. I am not forcing anything, just presenting my argument. So that is wrong.

As far as foist number 2 there, it goes straight back to the point that no one exists who will be foisted upon. Look at the two scenarios:
1) A child is not born. There is no ACTUAL person who is foisted upon. I can have hundreds of potential children, NONE OF THEM have anything happening to them.

2) A child is born. An ACTUAL person is foisted upon. Something is actually being affected. Something is having a game/challenge/"adventure" of life put on someone. The escape is death from this, or cope, deal, identify with the game. Whatever you want to say, someone is being foisted something in scenario 2.

Holy shit, im not talking about Benatars asymmetry. Im not even really talking about that part of the antinatalist argument at all.
In this last post, I was pointing out a contradiction that you made, and before that I was pointing out a double standard you keep trotting out. These are not based on the weakness of Antinatalism, they are based on logic and they attack the way in which you are making your argument. (With misapplied logic). Evidently you are completely clueless as to what you are actually saying and instead consider your points well made not by their merit but merely by the repetition of words you’ve read in Benatars argument.
So nothing you have responded with shows any comprehension at all about what is being said to you. (By me). — DingoJones

Go ahead, tell me what I'm missing and I'll tell you how I'm exactly countering your point. You said that it is about consideration of what is for the future child, and I am telling you my argument is about consideration of a potential child that is presently absent. That does change the way this argument goes, sorry but it does.

"Asshole attitude". Really dude? Because you have been the absolute pinnacle of gentlemanly, chivalrous conduct? "Asshole attitude" coming from you means absolutely nothing no offence. — khaled

:rofl: Either he is being completely ironic or has no self-reflective abilities of how he comes across.

Again, if you don't do principle based ethics, you shouldn't be debating principles. And if you DO suspend your disbelief with doing principle based ethics and decide to debate principles then you at least should continue suspending your disbelief until the debate is over. Not go back to "But actually I don't do principle based ethics" the second a contradiction between a principle and your behaviour arises. — khaled

Great observation!! :up:

I don't want to argue with you but the thing is the WAY you argue is what's so weird. You argue the principles themselves and then when it no longer works out you go back to your "But actually I don't use principle based approaches" crux. That's why I called you a troll. Because you DO principle based ethics, for a bit, by arguing why this principle is better than that or what motivation there is behind this principle etc but then you turn back to saying "But actually I don't use principle based approaches" at the first sign of inconsistency

If you don't do principle based approaches don't argue the principles themselves. Every time I argue with you I think you're suspending your disbelief and actually doing a principle based approach only for it to end with "but actually I don't do principle based approaches". If you don't, don't argue the principles themselves because that's called oing a principle based approach — khaled

You hit the nail on the head! I told you he argues like a troll and not with any sense of integrity or sincerity. Much of what he does is to try to dig rabbit holes and argue in circles. He does not argue in good faith and thus will never actually offer any real debate, just circular reasoning which you think is in a spirit of good faith, but is not.

You contradicted yourself in your confused response as well, in one instance denying any possible consideration of the person to be (they arent born yet) then turning around (in other posts) and allowing that consideration (how they will suffer as a person after being born) when it supports your argument. — DingoJones

So this is Benatar's asymmetry that he pointed out. It's not about allowing consideration, but rather the absence of good vs. the absence of bad for potential people. The absence of bad for a potential person is always good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone. It is simply good that bad is not taking place. The absence of pleasure is not bad, unless there is an actual person for which this absence was a deprivation. The absence of pleasure is not bad, unless someone is actually existing to be deprived of it. The absence of pain for any actual person is good, no matter what.

I'm talking about something much broader than that. — Terrapin Station

Then there's your category error as you are dragging in two different situations- one where you are starting a life and one where a life is already-existent. It is important that the two not be mixed. That is much of your problem.

So basically, it's just your opinion that it's not your job (you seem to be forgetting that I'm talking about opinions on whether some things are ridiculous to count as suffering, but at any rate . . .), and you're deciding for me that it should be my opinion that it's not your job to have opinions contrary to others about what's worth or not worth counting as suffering etc. — Terrapin Station

No bro, khaled and I have explained this to you before, simple reasoning. If I don't have a child no one except the parent's own agenda is affected. That is okay, another life (not an instance, or an event but life wholesale) is not affected by my decision of not having a child. However, you having a child would affect that person a lifetime, and in certain negative ways.

Now, the nature of those ways can be debated. I am a structural pessimist, so I do believe that deprivation itself is a harm as @Inyenzi mentioned some posts ago in a very thoughtful post. You seem to ignore those as deemed as not worthy of consideration. However, if we are going to simply rely on "usual" notions of negative and positive, it is really not up to you to deem for ANOTHER what is considered appropriate to find harmful. That I find, excuse my French, arrogant as fuck. And, it is cruel and callous to think that what you find laughable and another would not, should win out by default because your decision of having the child cannot be reversed. And no, suicide is not the reverse.

That in no way addresses what I said. — DingoJones

Look closely, it does. But if I must explain it, no actual person is being foisted upon by not having them. That is not true if they are born.

Yes it is. That is exactly what you are doing. You have made a subjective evaluation about suffering, and are arguing against and morally condemning other people (parents/would be parents) based on that evaluation (foist number one), in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2). — DingoJones

So, I don't think you are seeing the logic of the asymmetry. Before someone is born, there is no actual person to be deprived of good. That is a fact. Once someone is born, there will be a person who suffers some harm. That is also a fact. Following this logic, not having children deprives literally no person, but harm would be prevented. No actual person is in a locked room in non-existence saying, "I want out!". That would be a projection of the already-existent parent.

This argument can be seen in Benatar's literature. See below:

Benatar argues there is crucial asymmetry between the good and the bad things, such as pleasure and pain, which means it would be better for humans not to have been born:

the presence of pain is bad;
the presence of pleasure is good;
the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.[6][7] — Wikipedia, David Benatar article

That's just saying the same thing in a wordier way. What makes it your job or not? — Terrapin Station

I already presented the fork in the road, the impasse. I will keep answering in the same way as it is exactly my response to this question

However, this would just be an argument for those who focus on consequences. I think it is simply wrong to promote the conditions for all suffering, where it can be prevented, which clearly you disagree with. When ideas such that, suffering must take place (whether for growth, "flourishing", the drum march of civilization, progress, more people to "do" XYZ, someone to take care of, or another agenda of the parent), when in fact, no one needs to be the recipient of this in the first place, we cannot go much further. Unfortunately for your argument, you have to bite the bullet that causing unnecessary harm is good, using people for agendas is good, and most importantly, you would have to ignore the glaring asymmetry that no person is alive before they are born to need goods of life in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Because it's not my job to judge that for someone else whose entire life regards the decision at hand and whose views, conditions, and contingent life-circumstances are not my own. Making suffering and challenges for another person, wholesale when there was no need to in the first place is no good. That's the point. It's not about my smug evaluations foisted on someone else.

We went over this :roll: and I pretty much answered you here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/314833

Who is anyone to decide? The whole nut of this stuff being subjective is that there aren't right answers, and we all decide whatever we want to, or whatever we're compelled to. — Terrapin Station

No not at all. You can decide whatever you want or compelled to do for yourself, not for or to others.

Basically, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with. — Terrapin Station

Again who are you or anyone to decide what that is for anyone else. Smug assuredness isn't much of a justification.

This seems to forget that whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective. Anyone could interpret any arbitrary thing--or everything as a benefit or any arbitrary thing--or everything as a detriment. There's no right answer there. It's just a matter of how an individual feels about it. So there's a net benefit (to a particular person) just in case someone evaluates it that way. There's a net detriment (to a particular other person) just in case someone else evaluates it that way. — Terrapin Station

But in game theory, there is such thing as maximin decisions. The maximin decision would be the one that accounts for the worst case scenario (similar to John Rawls' idea of Veil of Ignorance in politics). You do not know what the child will face or think. The least cost to anyone with no knowledge, would be to simply never have the child in the first place.

However, this would just be an argument for those who focus on consequences. I think it is simply wrong to promote the conditions for all suffering, where it can be prevented, which clearly you disagree with. When ideas such that, suffering must take place (whether for growth, "flourishing", the drum march of civilization, progress, more people to "do" XYZ, someone to take care of, or another agenda of the parent), when in fact, no one needs to be the recipient of this in the first place, we cannot go much further. Unfortunately for your argument, you have to bite the bullet that causing unnecessary harm is good, using people for agendas is good, and most importantly, you would have to ignore the glaring asymmetry that no person is alive before they are born to need goods of life in the first place.

It would best not to conceive in the first place but sure.

Pre-conception, you're not doing anything to anyone by conceiving. — Terrapin Station

Right, I meant physical birth.

Before they're born--but do you mean after conception?

A lot of things that you and khaled are saying now sound like you're fine with conception, but you're advocating necessarily having an abortion after one has conceived. — Terrapin Station

You can take that as pre-birth or pre-conception. I don't want to debate abortion. That just goes down another rabbit hole. As a preview though, Benatar has an interesting idea about the antinatalist implication for pro-abortion. I'll just leave you with Benatar's position from his book Better Never to Have Been as outlined from Oxford Scholarship website:

The conclusions of the previous chapters are applied to the abortion question. Four kinds of interests are distinguished: functional, biotic, conscious, and reflective interests. It is argued that beings are morally considerable only when they have at least conscious interests. Because consciousness only arises in human foetuses quite late in gestation (around 28-weeks), people do not come into existence (in the morally relevant sense) until at least that time. Thus, given the harm of coming into existence, it is wrong not to abort a foetus in the earliest stages of gestation. The ‘pro-death’ argument is then defended against two famous arguments that abortion is wrong — Richard Hare's ‘golden rule’ argument and Don Marquis' ‘future-like-ours’ argument. — oxfordscholarship.com, Better Never to Have Been

The point is we are all screwed and human in our vanity doing things out of mainly boredom, discomfort, and survival, mediated through the medium of our society/culture. This is no different for the plains Native Americans or the city-state dweller.

To my point, Ecclesiastes describes life in a city-state as far as I know and not life in a tribe or clan like the plains Native Americans. — Noah Te Stroete

I guess we can do the Sun Dance:

Those who had pledged to endure the Sun Dance generally did so in fulfillment of a vow or as a way of seeking spiritual power or insight. Supplicants began dancing at an appointed hour and continued intermittently for several days and nights; during this time they neither ate nor drank. In some tribes supplicants also endured ritual self-mortification beyond fasting and exertion; in others such practices were thought to be self-aggrandizing. When practiced, self-mortification was generally accomplished through piercing: mentors or ritual leaders inserted two or more slim skewers or piercing needles through a small fold of the supplicant’s skin on the upper chest or upper back; the mentor then used long leather thongs to tie a heavy object such as a buffalo skull to the skewers. A dancer would drag the object along the ground until he succumbed to exhaustion or his skin tore free. Among some tribes the thongs were tied to the centre pole, and the supplicant either hung from or pulled on them until free. Piercing was endured by only the most committed individuals, and, as with the rest of the ritual, it was done to ensure tribal well-being as well as to fulfill the supplicant’s individual vow. — Brittanica.com, Sun Dance

It's shocking so few people feel infantile they can't take care of the needs of living. This, being dependent on others for subsistence, does in fact make me feel impotent. And the more
"successful" and "independent" one is reliant on the principle of exchange in economic fundamentalism, in truth, the more dependent he is (this being a central irony of the human system, it makes people feel more adult and mature the more dependent they are on the system). So the Noble Savage thing is true for me; in any supposed higher species, an individual must be dependent on nothing in between him and the work of living; in other terms, self-reliance/mental and physical autonomy, necessitates a first-order, or direct ontological orientation. What would you do if you had to actually take care of yourself and meet the needs of living? I'm not sure if a solitary, self-reliant animal, like a raptor, a falcon say, isn't more advanced than the average human. — Anthony

There are several things I agree and disagree with here. First, I agree that the economic-system you describe is depersonalizing. I use this computer right now, but I had no contribution to the components, or ideas that went into this computer. In fact, a person who doesn't work with computers may not even know the first thing about what makes a computer work, and all its various components, and how these technologies work together.. But even knowing that isn't enough..There is the physical nature of the components, that even the computer people might not know..the plastics, the copper, the diodes, the resisters, the semiconductors, and how all those are made.. Then there is the aspect of mining, manufacturing, compiling all the raw resources into secondary ones, into finished products that can be assembled..It is mind-boggling endless, and our only contribution to it was to consume the product and make those involved money.

What I disagree with you about is that there is some sort of better life at the end of the tunnel.. The life of the falcon, the life of the noble savage, the life of the solitary hermit. These are just hope-notions we put onto life because it is harder to accept that life itself is the problem. It is better never to have been born in the first place. What is the point of all these "tasks" and survival? It is only because we know no other way. There is suicide as the only other option at this point and we usually fear the unknown and uncertain pain. Thus, tasks are simply manifestations of our boredom, discomfort, and desire to survive, and nothing more reified and exalted than that. There is no nobility in any task- whether in a depersonalized economy, or a one-man, self-reliant economy. It is simply the de facto things we must do to cope, deal with, and get by, from being born in the first place. There is no progress, there is no "true form of living", there is flourishing, there is no rainbow sunshine at the end of a concerted effort. There is just existence and our wills which require us to do certain things to satisfy our boredom, discomfort, and survival needs and wants.

(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there. — luckswallowsall

Yes I agree with this in a way. I think our wills manifest in boredom, discomfort, and survival pursuits.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions. — luckswallowsall

This I'm not sure of at a daily level. Each day we can prioritize what content we will do as a result of these three basic motivating factors. However, I can see what Schopenhauer means by the fact that each of us has a different psyche with a different personality that may preset what we choose to value. Even breaking the original values with other ones, may be preset in how easy it is to change our values in the first place. Free will may be mediated to the psychology of the individual, and the circumstantial causation leading up to what that individual deems worthy of doing or not doing at a particular time.

That’s a decision we make to surrender to social expectation, to allow it to answer yes/no for us. How does society respond to those who act against social expectation? Is that what we’re afraid of? How capable do you believe you are of living counter to any particular expectation of society? — Possibility

When you wake up in the morning, what structures and prioritizes your day? I'm obviously getting somewhere with this... Keep in mind the underlying current moving individuals are BOREDOM, DISCOMFORT, and SURVIVAL. The medium of these principles is linguistic-based, enculturated social interactions with other humans in a certain culture. Thus boredom, discomfort, and survival is mediated and filtered through this medium. Secondary, and tertiary reasons for doing things really are reducible to boredom, discomfort, and survival mediated through a social setting. Thus getting mad at a boss or a friend, or wanting to maximize your fastest time running, or beat that monster in a game, are all secondary and tertiary goals related to some form of initial boredom, discomfort, and survival related motivation. That is my theory, anyways.

Laundry and cleaning dwelling- not survival related, nor necessarily boredom. More discomfort.

Talking to your friend who then got you angry (secondary reaction)- not survival or discomfort. More boredom-related.

Going to work and buying food and paying for utilities- mix of survival and discomfort related activities.

You get the picture. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is the specific content we actually prioritize to fill these three motivating factors. Why, this day did you choose to do this particular thing when you prioritized your day?

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?"

My answer is "No." (At least not on how broadly folks seem to use the words "suffering" and "harm.")

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?"

My answer is "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on the risk, the exact situation, etc.

We could also add:

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?"

Again, my answer would be "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on what we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Before someone is born, what on earth would possess someone to non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person? What does someone need to go through in the first place in order for this to be justified? Nothing..just selfish want of that future person to be born to go through XYZ agenda (which may or may not happen the way you intended it to anyways).

You also clearly don't think humans are on some sort of mission to bring some value of some kind to the universe- you seem too skeptical for that kind of concrete assurance.

I just find it odd that you would believe a) preventing suffering is not a priority (and ipso facto, allowing suffering, where there needs to be none is good in this view), and b) not even thinking suffering is bad, is mildly sadistic. If you want to go the route of "I just want to put value in the world of some sort" that would be contradictory to your usual skepticism. If you somehow do want to contradict yourself and think that some value needs to be put forth in the world, then this needs to be justified above starting suffering for another in the first place.

But really, this just comes down to you think people should just do what they want to do as long as the public is generally okay with it. So your ethics isn't principle based other than ad populum basically. Because clearly you think other things are wrong, and if you do not base that on a principle than that too is just enculturated ad populum beliefs as well.. So you do in way have a belief, it is follow what is culturally acceptable at the time.

Frankly, if it weren’t for our fears - for encountering and then flatly denying the fragile, temporary nature of our existence - don’t you think we’d be doing a whole lot more with what we’re capable of? So, you see, it’s not so starry-eyed: it’s actually scary as hell to recognise that the only thing really holding me back is me... — Possibility

This would assume that we are motivated by capabilities, rather than just have capabilities that we can or cannot work towards achieving. That is a major difference. The former is saying that we can't help being motivated by what we may be capable of. How do you know that's not just habituation? Is that internal? How would you prove that?

And if these are just the type of values society would want individuals to follow, then why are all of their value systems structured in a way that counteracts it? Is it because we’ve been convinced that the pyramid is naturally smaller at the top? What brought about these systems? Was it perhaps fear? — Possibility

Social expectation seems to motivate a lot of what we do, and what goals to achieve.

"The majority of stable middle class people with access to the internet in a 1st world country like life" is a bit better though I still think it's not as obvious as it seems — khaled

Right, and since most of the people on this forum are middle class 1st worlders, they are going to say they should have more children, because their children will say that they like life. Thus they will say, case closed.

The other argument, like ones that Terrapin tries to argue, is that suffering, or not all forms of it are bad, so it is good that people are born and suffer, if suffer is qualified by certain forms of it which people like Terrapin don't mind.

Those are the basic arguments people will always use to defend natalism.

But is it really so simple? Did I just burst from a parinibbanic state, taking form as this body only for this conscious experience to dissolve back into nothingness, eternally? — Inyenzi

What's the alternative? Is this a nod to the idea of reincarnation?