Endlessly repeated questions like this, by the mere fact that they are questions, suggest that you wish you had an answer, or at least, a good answer, to them; that you believe there may be good answers to them that you simply haven't yet come across. Is this so or do you axiomatically deny that there could ever be any adequate answers given, such that these questions are meant merely to be rhetorical? — Thorongil

Well, these questions seem to lead to a certain conclusion- that of the concept of instrumentality and unnecessary struggle. The absurd repetitious nature of life, the need for survival and entertainment, the burden of dealing with one's self, society, surroundings, and the contingencies of life itself. My hope is this makes people take pause. I believe, if it does not make people take pause, the actual implications of these consequences for a future child have not been realized. But it also should make them take pause of their own lives. This is not strictly about antinatalism, but about our own existential condition as self-reflecting beings. It leads back to the vanity of our pursuits, the repetitious nature of life, the constant pressure from needs and wants from our own nature, impinging harms from contingent circumstances, and importantly, the constant, relentless "dealing" with our own choices, circumstances in life. In my view, anything that gets more focus on this rather than ignoring our own unique situation is a good thing. Questioning procreation happens to be the best tool to bring people to a more existential understanding. So if I place "value" on something, it is understanding the our situation more clearly, seeing some of the negative implications, and preventing it. It is kind of a whole package. It is existentially motivated- not consequential, not necessarily deontological, but methodological.. It is antinatalism via a more overriding Pessimism, not antinatalism stark and naked. Why the methodology? Because that is the part that answers the "how about the people already existing part". Simply saying.. more people means more suffering is hallow without the implications of what this means for us.. It makes us take stock of our own condition by going through the methodology and not merely acting on a principle in some "If-then" none self-reflecting way.

To take up the question again, no, maybe we don't need to create more people. But there are lots of things we don't need to do that we do, that you do. Why do you continue to do them? "Because of habit or natural instinct," you might reply. Ah, but if you realize that you do such things out of habit and instinct, and yet still continue do them, on what grounds can you criticize the act or the decision to procreate? Just because something is natural doesn't make it right (an appeal to nature), but it doesn't make it wrong either. "I just want parents to think about their decision more seriously." So do I. And if they have, and decide to have children while acknowledging and considering your questions, are they to be condemned? You have said both that you are an anti-natalist and that you don't condemn parents for having children. But you must choose, for these are not mutually compatible. — Thorongil

So this idea of antinatalism is very much tied to our own existential condition. The very "why" we do anything- why things are worth it. This is very abstract and to many people, this kind of abstractness does not translate immediately. Being more of a methodologically-oriented ethic, it takes time to grapple with these things. Similar to Schopenhauer's idea of the vanity of things unfolding over certain predisposed personalities over time, this questioning process and insights into instrumentality take time to understand its implications. This is the part that matters for the already-existing.. the concept of antinatalism again, is a tool for this self-understanding. So it is mutually compatible.. Also, secondarily, as I think I said earlier, like vegetarians that practice and promote their cause without being obnoxious or abrasive, when something that is way outside the normative view is abrasively shoved down people's throats, that does not really do much. There are certain things worth condemning that immediately affects those already-existing: torture, stealing, taking away people's relative freedom of choice, etc. etc. But this more abstract principle of antinatalism is a bit harder to qualify for people. Creating people that by correlation must deal with life by their mere existence, does not compute right away.

So in a very roundabout, with many caveats way, Thorongil, I agree with you. I have sympathy with people who have children out of some joyful hope of things. I think there might be non-reflection going on, but this again is methodological... The person can come to the existential conclusions about life even after they have a kid. It is not the direct consequence that matters, but the self-reflection and understanding from this. Thus, no the "blame" is not necessarily on the parents, the way someone who is torturing can be blamed. I am not sure if what I am laying out is even considered "ethics" in the traditional sense as more of a theory of value and aesthetic outlook in a more general sense.

How is this not making the same contradictory point but with different vocabulary? How is "affect without input" different from "force without consent?" The former appears as merely a euphemism of the latter, made in order to hide the contradiction embedded in the latter. — Thorongil

But I do not see the contradiction.. Just because that person was not around before his own birth does not mean that the impossibility of causing his own existence means that he was not affected without any input in the matter.. I don't see how that stands as a contradiction.

Agreed. — Thorongil

I think we agree on more than this discourse lets on, but I'll continue.

I suppose suicide could be seen as dealing with life, but I don't see what this is a reply to. I'll take it as a general comment. — Thorongil

It's a reply to my original comment about being "forced" or "thrown" into the world. One is "forced" to make choices where before, there was no choices to be made as there was no person to make them.. A person was created, and by direct correlation, must be forced with decisions, burdens, and the rest. This is something "forced" "foisted" whatever, as a person was created that is correlated with these things, where in a counterfactual case, there may not have been someone created who was forced to with decisions, burdens, and the rest. I think the semantic word-game your argument is taking, discounts that we probably agree on the point.. If you want to rephrase it so that it satisfies your word-game, be my guest.. But I think you are getting it, but are stuck on the language used. For example, I have used in the past instead of "forced into existence" that "a state of affairs will take place that leads to X. Y, Z, when another state of affairs could have taken place that did not lead to X, Y, and Z". If you prefer me to assert the claim in that fashion, I'll accommodate. "Forced" is a colloquialism for this more elongated version. I feel this does not need to be stated, as you probably know it already.

But I would argue that one should support civilization because it's moral to do so. And it's moral because civilization is better than the alternatives at administering justice and providing for the well being of others. The person who prefers violence, chaos, and anarchy is not a moral person. — Thorongil

Okay, fundamentally I agree with you here, but my point was that not many people are going to argue against you. As you agreed on, it is mostly in self-interest which is not working "against" civilization, but quite fitting in the framework and de facto consenting to the fruits of civilization. That's why I equated it to someone saying "All politician's are terrible". Well, most people can agree.. so it becomes a truism. It isn't saying much. I guess its aimed at terrorists and extremists who want to blow the system up or something, but when did the discussion veer to that? Also, who wold really want to live in utter chaos, anarchy, and violence their whole life? Not 95% of the population I'd guess. I think this came out of your answer to some sort of purpose.. Okay, but most people, as we both agree are just pursuing their self-interest in the given framework, trying to get by, so it is sort of a moot point. As you agreed with me on:

On the other hand, it is not wrong not to support civilization for those who, as you say, peacefully pursue their self-interest within the framework of civilization. — Thorongil

So, this is most people. The given of the system is to inadvertently contribute via the invisible hand, or on the rare occasion, those who have the skill and inclination and self-reflection to know they are contributing to something that provides some sort of "profound" innovation. However, I would not see people should be born to pursue this.. But I do not think you are too, so we can move on to the next topic.

Antiquation does not equal falsity. — Thorongil

Well, this is now getting caught up in that word-game thing again. No, of course I am not trying to say that because something is "out of fashion" that it must be wrong. Rather, I am saying that just as the "luminous ether" and the justification for acts of brutality like slavery were once something that was thought of as right, we have developed (more or less) more sophisticated observations and conclusions based on evidence and our general feelings towards diverse groups of people. So, in that regard, it is "outdated" like many scientific and social customs are "outdated" due to a better understanding of the world, not simply because it is "out of fashion".. On the similar token, some things like aesthetic preferences, like classical music is still "great" and not because it is not en vogue. But again, this is something I feel you know, and do not need to explain.

Yes, and I am saying that the people will be there whether, by your lights, they "need" or "ought" to be or not! Call it a paradox, if you like, but that is the crux of my position. — Thorongil

Okay, but then this is the crux of where we are crossing paths! I am not disagreeing with you about civilization, but the argument was about life's perpetual instrumentality.. Should we bring the system down as we contemplate the nuances of instrumentality? No, but I have never said that. Again, I feel you already know this.

Yes, this does seem mildly inconsistent and slightly confusing to me still. Are you a moral relativist now perchance? — Thorongil

No.. I will be answer this and your other comments soon..

"Thrown" has implicit normative connotation. It implies that someone who already exists is forced to do something without their consent. But as I argued and as you acknowledge here, that is not what happens. Parents cause their children to exist, but they do not, and cannot, force them to exist. Thus, the causative act of procreation is amoral and, for that very reason, permissible. — Thorongil

Parents cause their children to exist. Since it is an impossibility to ask something-that-does-not-exist to participate in its own birth, by being caused to be born, another human was affected without that person having input in the matter (by way of the impossibility of consenting in the first place). I am not saying this means the parent should be condemned (as I don't think of it in those terms with antinatalism), but just as I have explained it (that someone was affected without input).

However, it does implicate the parent in not perhaps thinking of the implications of causing that child's existence. The parent is causing a new being to contend with life, when there did not need to be anything to contend with in the first place. This is where I implore the future parent to look deeper at this implication. I also do not believe that we can choose NOT to deal with life once born. We are always dealing with life, forced to make goals, forced to make choices as is how life is structurally.. Thus to be caused to be born is to go through this, it is not something we can choose NOT to do (even the goal or choice of suicide is something we have to choose if we do not want the alternatives).

Why are you asking me? I don't plan on having children, but I recognize that other people do and that this can be beneficial with respect to the maintenance of civilization. — Thorongil

I just don't see how maintaining civilization or committing suicide is a goal unto itself. It is a hypothetical imperative that you seem to be making categorical..

Rather, if one is inclined to that civilization is something that is good because it provides X, Y, and Z and that is preferable, then by all means, one should support the cause of civilization, and ya know, "Rah Rah, Sis Boom Ba!" .. But if you would hypothetically prefer to see violence, chaos, and anarchy.. then that would make things less pleasant for those who do support the cause of civilization, and so unless you want to see, that nay nay.. but why ruin the parade of others boo boo!..

Even if people don't explicitly take this maintenance of civilization on as their goal, but rather pursue their self-interest within the framework of civilization we have now, not much would change.. No, listening to science and philosophy podcasts and books won't make much more contribution to civilization than the average folks that are producing stuff and buying stuff already... Those inclined towards invention will do so, those inclined towards art and philosophy will do so, just as those inclined towards sports, games, and the Wall Street investments will do so etc. etc., just as people have done through the ages who inadvertently without supporting violence, barbarism, or the other..

But again, all you are saying is "to maintain X, Y, Z society, you must support X, Y, Z factors". This is not saying much.. If you want to keep having nice cars.. you need to maintain engineers, manufacturing, and the like. Well ok, I just don't think that is much of a moral stance just a very basic understanding of how to keep the goods and services we prefer to have going.

No, they live in a primitive society. Primitive -> barbaric -> civilized. Merriam-Webster: "barbaric: possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive culture but less sophisticated than advanced civilization." — Thorongil

I mean, c'mon this is language employed by a select group of intellectuals in the 1700s-1800s.. It's very antiquated. Franz Boas, a leading anthropologist of the 20th century contended this model for example. It also smacks of red herring as it does not get at the heart of the issue which is why bring more people into existence in the first place, not "how to keep the whole civilization thing going". And, as I already explained above, by existing, for the most part simply living day-to-day life without screwing up too much with other people or large swaths of society, they are "maintaining" de facto. But to support civilization means nothing, without the people there that "benefit" from the civilization.. But I am saying is you don't need the people to be there to benefit from it in the first place.. Yeah civilization seems to bring some cool stuff, but that's only if you prefer it (which most do), and thus most would assent to this anyways. It's like saying.. "politicians are all terrible".. Many people can agree with this.. but it's not saying much.. It's a platitude. No one has to hold a toga together with one hand, stoically stare into space in a statue pose, and carry around philosophy books to continue civilization either.

I apologize for in any way souring the conversation, but I was simply interested in knowing where you stand on this issue. You and I go back a long time at this point, schop1. As you know, I used to be an anti-natalist, and I know you were one too, but as I explained earlier, over time I realized I couldn't reach its conclusion based on the ethical premises I accept. I have also come to find the arguments for anti-natalism unpersuasive. At the moment, I'm neither a natalist nor an anti-natalist. Your present position has remained a bit of an enigma, in that you make threads like this one that seem to beat around the bush. If you don't condemn people for having children, that is actually news to me, especially given the many artifacts of anti-natalist arguments you have employed thus far in this thread. When did you reject anti-natalism, and how did you come to such a position? — Thorongil

I know, we do go back a long time on these forums, especially regarding this issue. Yes, my present position is not really as forceful as previous iterations, but in the same spirit. I am less inclined to absolutist notions, and more interested in existential issues as a whole. I don't know if I necessarily reject antinatalism per se though.. I don't necessarily think in condemning or blaming ways is more like it. I think it is best not to be born, and promote this idea. I don't condemn people who do procreate though, which you may think is hypocritical, but may be different approaches to how we see the world. I see it more like eating animals.. Those who are strict vegetarians or vegans, may not participate in the animal byproduct industry as much as possible. They may even promote it as much as possible when they can.. But they don't need to be complete assholes to those around them, condemning them with full effect, etc.. just because this is something they strongly believe themselves. They can take a softer approach.. Yes, you can say if it is so important a cause, it should be akin to firebrand abolitionism, or civil rights activists. I don't think issues like these, where the norms are so beyond the common understanding, should be dealt in such a matter..

Also, I prefer antinatalism as an abstracted way to get at the instrumentality of life.. Birth is what leads to more life in the first place.. which leads to asking "why create more life in the first place?" This gets down to why people need to carry out this or that purpose that one is going to say needs to take place by individual humans who will carry out this mission. What is it about work, enculturation, dealing with life in general that needs to be experienced? What about the struggles that inevitabley occur? Why create more people that will need stuff? Etc etc.

Meaning the purpose of life as its entirety is to perpetuate its existence. When reflecting on one’s life we can see that all our actions and behaviours are to essentially serve this greater purpose. — ThinkingMatt

Okay, this is essentially the mainline Theory of Evolution put forth by Darwin and perhaps earlier. Although, you should not insert a teleology here as evolution isjust consequences of a mechanism.

If the function of life is to circulate and continue its existence. Then its purpose can be defined as its function. Meaning the purpose of life as its entirety is to perpetuate its existence. When reflecting on one’s life we can see that all our actions and behaviours are to essentially serve this greater purpose. — ThinkingMatt

The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. Surely, animals breed with slight and accumulative variations at different survival rates and various niches. Due to these factors species may change over time or particular branches die off. This is purely mechanistic- the "need" to reproduce and create this situation through intention has nothing to do with it. That is purely a preference thrown in the equation ad hoc.

Evident (for example) in the fact that people who suffer debilitating injuries or win the lotto both go back to their pre-existing level of self-reported satisfaction with life after only a few months. — ThinkingMatt

This is more getting to the point- humans desire for desire. Desires are relentless and never satisfied.

When you focus right down to it, every single behaviour and action from eating to love and even death can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

Well you made a distinction between species purpose and individual purpose, yet I feel you are still conflating the two. Purpose is usually considered as what makes life meaningful or fulfilling, or worth continuing in the context of the individual. If this leads to species-wide reproduction, then that is a consequence of the individual's purpose, but not the purpose itself.

What your argument does tangentially seem to get at is a concept I have been looking at for a while- that of instrumentality. You mentioned reproduction. Reproduction has happened billions of times over and is occurring now in the thousands. This leads to ideas of repitition. Why do more people "need" to be born in the first place? What is it about the gauntlet of life's absurd going through the motions that we need others to do this? There is much struggle, displeasure, and unwanted circumstances that impinge the new individual on top of the core idea that someone is simply continually burdened with surviving and entertaining themselves in their historical-cultural setting.

This appears to be your answer to why instrumentality is a problem. The problem with it is that, instead of merely acknowledging the fact that human beings will exist in the future, you resort to hyperbolic and sophistical expressions like "thrown into existence." No one is thrown into existence, for no one exists before they exist, which is both impossible and absurd. The act of procreation does not pluck pre-born souls from the ether and force them into bodies. — Thorongil

Just because there was no "pre-born souls" which you very-well know I don't believe in, does it then mean that people are not "thrown into existence". You are born without having a say, because it is impossible. Someone is born and it happened not of their own cause. It is not hyperbolic, but is simply what happens. There was no human, and then there is. Wherever you cut this "there is", it happens at some point and that is the "thrown" that you think is hyperbolic.

Nor did anyone ask not to be anything or not contribute to the maintenance of civilization. Prior to existing, we couldn't ask to be or not to be anything, because there was no "we." — Thorongil

Yes if a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one there to hear it.. People need to exist for consent to exist. Thus, there cannot be "no wanting to exist" without existence. I was figuring you were going to go in that direction. The problem is, not existing would have not even made this an issue in the first place. Why create any issue at all? Why create those who need to be obligated to others, if what you are saying is something you strongly believe is what we must do. Forcing someone into an obligation to the species or be obliged to commit suicide seems its own bizarre justification.

Moreover, once we do exist, there isn't any way to determine whether existence is preferable to non-existence, since no one has or can experience non-existence to make the comparison. — Thorongil

Not preferable but, simply would be a non-issue. Born = issue. Not born, no issue, nor would it matter that there is no issue either. Just non-being.. Cannot get beyond the words here unfortunately whend discussing non-being (shades of Wittgenstein..etc. etc.). However, from the perspective of being, born one can get to understanding of instrumentality, striving, and for the non-reflective the actual "living in striving" and the ever present contingent harms of the many ways the world impinges on us in unwanted ways.

For all you and I know, which is, by definition, nothing, non-existence may be worse than existence. — Thorongil

Well, this may be an abuse of the word non-existence. No one can really speak about it directly, only about it.. and even that seems absurd.. However, I don't think "worse" even really makes sense when discussing something like non-existence other than a word-game as the counterfactual to existence from the perspective of one already existing.

A barbaric society is one inferior to a civilized one. If you understand and appreciate the benefits of civilization, then you wouldn't enjoy living in a barbaric society, even if you knew of no alternative, for otherwise you would be other than you are. Not all people living in such societies enjoy living in them, and so you would be one of them. — Thorongil

I'm not sure about that.. Again, Bushmen might like their lifestyle and not give a shit about the millions of complex technological advances or whatever other standin for our current civilization. You are overvaluing science, technology, arts, humanities, and the rest as an end in itself and not seeing it too as just another instrumental goal. I am not saying I don't like or prefer these things, just that it is not a justification in and unto itself.

However, to indulge your cultural absolutism.. perhaps we can get to a state where all people can become of one civilization and then realize the absurdity of instrumentality. So in a way, I agree with you that, the way history has played out, Western civilization will perhaps bring us to this conclusion.. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Space Baby representing the new human understanding..of the absurdity of instrumentality. The absurdity of procreation for procreation, to do to do, to be to be.

As an aside, I am not liking the character of this debate because I am being pigeonholed into a debate about an absolute ethics which I don't hold. I don't condemn people who have kids. I don't think there is necessarily an obligation either. I just want people to think more about the implications of procreation, what that will do for the future person, and what instrumentality means about human life in general.

A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now. — Michael Ossipoff

What is wrong with that though? You are assuming that is necessarily bad. It is simply non-being.

By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes I acknowledged this in my first post. You'd have to elaborate on your "metaphysics" though in order for this to have context though.

Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child. — Michael Ossipoff

But that is yet again, not thinking of the future child which you are now going to create that needs to need, when the need did not have to be created in the first place if you never had the future child.

What are you talking about? I answered the question you asked in this quote. — Thorongil

I don't think you did. Your little formula (Burkean influenced you say?) does not solve the problem of instrumentality, and in fact perpetuates it as we are now living so others can live, so others can live, so others can live. There's a lot of collateral damage in that, with the individuals thrown into existence to maintain this. However, you're getting to a possible answer when you attach instrumentality to this. However, I would not say there is any hard obligation here, as stated earlier with the none contract that was signed.. No one asked to be born and to contribute to the maintenance of civilization or will otherwise agree that suicide is the only recourse for not contributing. This I am guessing is sort of a Burkean social contract, but (and other Enlightenment social contract theorists) didn't think of "life" as something that was done to someone, they assumed its existence without thinking of the procreation of another person involved.

Then you presuppose the maintenance of civilization until it reaches such a point. — Thorongil

Sure? I just don't see it as my mission. Rather, I prefer the fruits of civilization over not..but that is not even necessarily the case as it could be true that I was born into a "barbaric" society (whatever that is), and still enjoy it, if I knew no other alternative. Rather, from my vantage now, which is quite biased, the Westernized civilization I live in is one I know and am most comfortable in. However, I would never say that everyone is "here to maintain civilization" as an end to itself. Rather, people maintain civilization because it is the easiest way to live and produce entertainment as far as we know.

Though from what I have read, some tribal societies, like the Bushmen, seem to live and entertain themselves quite easily, despite a possible early death. However, I still say instrumentality is foundational to all humans and all cultures. Nothing "needs" to be maintained.

Levinas also touches on enjoyment, on jouissance, being primary, before all this thinking. What of this aspect of his views?

I'm interested in the absence of sex/gender in your musings about this topic. It doesn't require a psychoanalyst to wonder whether there isn't something about *mothers*, rather than people in general, that you're implicitly addressing. The abstractions you talk in seem to be the ways an academic could-be-father would think about such a topic. What of the could-be-mother's body and what the body's moods and tempers and temperaments tell a woman?

I'm a fairly old man, beyond fatherhood now, and never fathered children. Even this male body of mine sometimes feels a great surge of parentness, though, towards children, and grief towards the children I might have had. These are profound feelings that seem to be treated as somehow insignificant in your account. — mcdoodle

There's a few things here. First, why assume that mothers are the only ones who nurture? I use nurture here, because I know Levinas specifically mentions to be nurtured as the originary form of coming into the world for a baby. You already sort of address this with the mentioning fatherhood.. I try to avoid gender/sexual politics in this in general, but it can be discussed. Do women experience some sort of biological "need" to nurture their own offspring? I don't know if human biology works like that. There are guys (and gals) who drool over a fancy car. They treat it with care and respect and maintain it really well. Is that biological? I doubt it. How do you know that you do not just falsely attribute instinct to what is simply a preference that is influenced by society? "I have an existential hole in my life (instrumentality but ill-formed) but creating a new human that I must put much of my life's effort can fill that" can be a better explanation than instinct per se. There is a tendency to overextend evolutionary biology too much in our preferences and decisions. We have general processors, neuroplasticitiy, and linguistic-conceptual frameworks that can make the one-to-one instinctual reasoning of other animals less pertinent.

Also, how does the preference of the mother/parent override the 80+ years of the new person's life that will be created as a result?

For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?

A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.

For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :) — Michael Ossipoff

So someone else's whole existence, whereby instrumentality (doing just to do), forced goal-seeking, and contingent harm is not justified? That seems a bit short-sighted.

But they have. It is implicitly agreed upon so long as one upholds the law and desires its just emendation, respects the rights of others, and looks to the past so as to determine one's actions in the present and the future. You do all of that on a daily basis. As I said, the only way to opt out of this contract is to commit suicide or a crime that leads to imprisonment, whereby one is voluntarily or involuntarily removed from society. — Thorongil

You are just restating the argument you had originally. As I said earlier: "No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that."

So that others can be born without having to starve or live in a barbaric way. — Thorongil

So again, how does this refute the earlier argument I made: "Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle."

Wrong. We have already agreed that humans reproduce whether in civilization or in barbarism, and it is clearly preferable that they do so in the former. You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously bemoan the injustice, evil, and suffering in life while at the same time deliberately condone their infliction in order to bring about the extinction of human beings. You must choose: either you commit to maintaining civilization, in which case you oppose barbarism, or you commit to barbarism, in which case you have no grounds for advocating anti-natalism on the basis of concern for human beings. Your anti-natalism would have to be grounded in a hatred of life and of human beings and in the desire for human extinction or the pleasure you feel in imagining this. — Thorongil

This is ultimately a false dichotomy. I prefer for no suffering and no instrumentality. I rather prefer that civilization comes to a point where it realizes the instrumentality of things, not that civilization demises altogether. If I were to agree to your premise, it would be to take humanity to the level of understanding of instrumentality and turning away from it, not to bring it to barbarism. There is no "If not this, then it has to be that", hence the false dichotomy.

But if life takes more than it gives (which is what I see to be the umph behind instrumentality), then what reason is there to keep living, and make more people who will live? — darthbarracuda

I agree.

So I think the part where I might be disagreeing with you is that I find enjoyment to be positively good and a justifying reason for doing (some) things. All things considered, if something brings me pleasure then I have a good reason to do it and keep doing it, even if it's repetitive. Maybe if I see how repetitive it is and wonder if there's anything "more" to life will I cease to find pleasure in what I am doing - but that's the problem, really, I cease to find pleasure in it. — darthbarracuda

Some people do not see the vanity in it. The ironic thing is that the more reflection we have on it, the more it becomes in vain, the more repetitive and unnecessary it seems. Why do people need to go through it in the first place is a bit different than, we are already here an we get pleasure out of things.

To live, to exist, is to enter into a contract with these parties, the voluntary opting out of which is only possible through suicide and the involuntary through imprisonment due to crime. This is not a duty for each individual to procreate, but it is a duty for society as a whole not to so completely wither away. — Thorongil

There are a couple problems I see here. First, the contract has to be agreed upon. No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that.

Also, an obligation to keep civilization going seems to also suffer from lack of a justification. Just as I can take "to do to do to do" and make it infinitum, "to civilize, to civilize, to civilize" or rather "keep civilization going to keep civilization going, etc." also suffers from infinite regress. Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle.

For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.

Well, this to me actually seems to show a pattern. When a society has enough people of a certain socio-economic level, one perhaps with more self-reflection of existence itself, perhaps procreation seems less desirable. The world becomes instrumental upon reflection, why bring more people into it? Less time just surviving perhaps leads to idle time for reflection (Bertrand Russell praised idleness for example). This idleness may even lead to thoughts of existential instrumentality. Why keep it all going? Seems logical.

Again, human beings will be born into the world whether we like it or not, but the deliberate procreation of children who are raised to carry the torch of civilization both does not squander the immense positive, constructive labor of previous generations and does not forsake future generations to abject misery. To not assert that we have this duty is, ipso facto and in practice, to prefer barbarism and anarchy. — Thorongil

So even if this was the implication, so what? Why not take it even further, prefers nothingness.. because after barbarism and anarchy, perhaps complete extinction of the species, right? If there was no human, what would that mean? If there was no consciousness, what would that mean? Why do more individuals born into the world and producing science/technology and all the rest need to be put forth?

But even granting the truth of this claim, which I am not entirely convinced of, the absence of a need to produce need does not, in itself, constitute a reason not to procreate. You've merely identified procreation as an action that isn't strictly obligatory for the individual. You haven't moved beyond the descriptive to the prescriptive.

Pointing out the apparent absurdity and vanity of existence leads one to question why more people ought to be created. But at that point, the assigning of moral blame to those who do so requires enumeration of what qualifies something or someone as morally blameworthy. Absent that, threads like this become mere plaintive tedium.

Now, in my own case, I have realized that attempting to justify anti-natalism on non-consequentialist grounds is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. For me, the motive determines the moral worth of an action, not its consequences. Hence, because the motive of most parents in having children is not to inflict or create more pain and suffering, they have done no wrong. Perhaps you agree but still see no positive reason to have children. That's fine, for again, there isn't any personal obligation to procreate. — Thorongil

Well, this is a descriptive thread about our existential situation. I am not laying blame per se. I am being "plaintive" in cajoling those who do want to procreate to look at the big picture as to why. To take the questioning all the way down, and not to stop at merely "X, Y, or Z" reasons, but keep going with the "why".. Keep deconstructing it to the very mechanism, which I believe to be the basis for human life, instrumentality itself.

The ethical implication comes in when it deals with making more people to deal with life in the first place, for whatever reason.

My own opinion is, as I have said several times, that life has no inherent meaning and there is no grand intention. It's up to us to decide, whatever the question is about our human/social reality. One of the minimal things life is meant to be is "endured". — Bitter Crank

Good point. Life is something to "deal" with. We are thrown into the world, and must deal with the given by creating a linguistic-based strategy of "being in the world", preferences, heuristics, guidelines, habits, and do this within the historico-cultural setting that is the given.

Now, tlo elucidate more, I should make a distinction between the primary "dealing with life" (the goal-seeking default of humans, whether they reflect on it or not) and the self-reflection on the repetitious goal-seeking.

This is a philosophy forum afterall, and as such we are all sort of descendants of a form of critical thinking. This critical thinking takes what is thought to be well-adjusted thought which we take for granted and to look at it critically to see if it stands up. What does not stand up, to me at least, and I would imagine many self-reflective, existentially-oriented people, is the repetitive nature of goals and the need to create more people who need to need. Why create people who do in the first place? Why create the burden of dealing in the first place? Why create more "to do" in the first place provides a quandary to the human animal. We can stop and reflect on why we continue more goal-seeking repetition. For those where "why" is a big deal, it does become problematic.

So to summarize, there is the "goal-seeking" primary need for need, which we do not need to self-reflect on, and then there is a more abstract philosophical problem of why more "to do" in the first place.

Say nobody suffered. Say we all loved life, and death was not feared but calmly accepted without any sadness. What would be wrong with instrumentality?

Your focus on needs makes me believe that it's the struggle that is problematic. If everything was easy-peasy lemon-squeezy there'd be nothing wrong with an absurd life. — darthbarracuda

The struggle is part and parcel with the idea. There is the struggle in achieving goals, and the relentless nature of the need for need, and the struggle in getting those goals. There is also the unique self-reflective ability of thinking upon existence itself (felt in boredom and angst, and intellectualized as the repetitious nature of goal after goal and need for need and striving in general). The fact that we are constantly faced with "having" to do something, the relentless nature of having to do, but for the sake of doing is something unique to our species (as far as we know). It does not go away. Your vision of no struggle would be something I would not even recognize as it would not be life as we know it. The struggle of being faced with "to do" or more accurately "to deal" with life, is structural.

So perhaps instrumentality is a meaningless issue, although I suspect it isn't. If nothing can ultimately have any purpose at all, then what does it mean for us to wonder why things exist? If it's impossible for something to have ultimate purpose, then can it really be bad that it has no ultimate purpose? What would need to be the case in order to satisfy the problem of instrumentality?

Probably the answer is that we humans need reasons for things and the absence of any is discouraging. Just as we need justice even if there isn't any. Or beauty when there isn't any. etc — darthbarracuda

Well, the problem with instrumentality is not necessarily about not having an ultimate purpose. By this I mean, not having some gestalt "Eureka!" explanatory reason for why things exist in the first place. But rather, as I said earlier "There is this relentlessness to being in that we are forced into cognitive gymnastics of self-other relations to maintain both our material survival and entertainment needs."

So the problem of instrumentality is why we need to need or rather create need in the first place. It is not only that we create need, but that we need to constantly pursue it. There is a vague understanding of the repetitiousness of this in all generations (the "absurd"). Why this repetition of going through goal-seeking and fulfilling structural survival and entertainment needs in a historical-cultural framework? Why do these needs need to be brought forth to a new generation, ad infinitum, until species or universal death is the question more or less. It is not necessarily one of why things exist in the first place, but rather, why we want to put more subjectivized beings in the world who will need to form goals to follow and make more people who will also form their own subjectivized world and need goals to follow, etc.

Once we hit the error logic of this instrumentality of to do to do to do, what do we do with this knowledge? Do we ignore it? Do we castigate it? Do we have a discussion on it? What I am trying to get at is, to at least deal with it as it is a problem unique to humans (as far as we know at this point) and yet, we fall back into the "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality" that we have created from the unformed, using a perhaps, inauthentic "automatic" mode. We assume our habits and goal-seeking is "us" and do not go on to the next layer of meta-analysis and get at what we are trying to get at by being in the first place.

This makes sense for why Nietzsche is so popular and often preferred over Schopenhauer or other pessimists.

I think the vast majority of people value life for its own sake, not just for the sake of experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain. It's hard to put your finger on precisely, but it's just good to be alive, is the position.

Because we value our lives, we're willing to put up with a significant amount of pain before we generally consider giving it up. So suicide is generally not an attractive option until the horribleness of the pain outweights the good of any continuation of being alive. — Brian

The better question is why we continue to procreate. Fear of death, the "unknown", pain, and the unsettling idea that there will be no future "self" that we are so used to chattering with, are sufficient enough reasons to me for why people do not commit suicide often outside of extremely painful circumstances.

The more fundamental question is why we continue bringing forth more people. What is it about having a next generation that needs to take place? The thoughtful answers would be something like: self-actualization, scientific discovery, art/music/humanities, creativity, flow experiences, physical pleasures, friends, relationships, achievement in some field or area of study, and aesthetic pleasures. However, the thoughtful person may also know that these experiences have some vague repetitiousness to it. It seems old hat that just repeats for each person in each generation. Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? In our linguistically-wired brains, we take the chaos of pure sensory information and through many cognitive mechanisms, create concepts and provide an impetus for our actions. In other words, we create goals. These goals, whether short-term, long-term, vague, or well-planned are executed as we have no choice. They well up from the unformed and provide some sort of ballast to the chaotic, undefined world. We must make one goal, then another, then another, even if just to get something to eat. What is really a value-less, goal-less world, is subjectivized into one where the individual human now has "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality". The structural needs of survival, the existential needs of entertainment, and the contingent setting of cultural surroundings that provide the content for surviving and entertaining, what is it that we want from this? Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die?

We're, especially mankind, the universe, specifically its mind, its conscisouness. Through us the universe has achieved self-awareness. People are very interested in Artificial Intelligence and the prospect of a self-aware machine is way up there in terms of human technological prowess BUT we forget that we:universe :: AI:humans, even more perhaps.

What would be the single most important purpose of a machine who's self-aware? Self-discovery of course. So, similarly, for us, the consciousness of the universe itself, the meaning of life is to understand the universe in all its glory. This meaning of life is ONE, OBJECTIVE and GRAND and should hopefully end our quest for the meaning of life.

Your valuable comments... — TheMadFool

What happens if we discover that there is nothing to discover except mechanisms and technological change?

Good points..I thought of these objections but gave him the benefit of the doubt that the clarity of language was secondary to what he was trying to get with a lot of charity.

Generally speaking, we get caught up in any number of goals. To get caught up is what we do. To hit the limit of existential thinking is to hit an error of sorts. Cultural contingencies give us the content to get caught up in.

Bingo, you hit on Schopenhauer's point. You do to do to do to do.. instrumentality.. to do just to do because survival and boredom mediated through goal-oriented action keep you going.

I was waiting for that movie to be referenced.

And that was my point is pointing out the abject poverty that the bushmen live in, which is the result, in part, of their lack of work, and really, it's based upon a social structure that outlived its usefulness thousands of years ago. — Hanover

You hold so many assumptions of what useful is though. Of course, if you grow up with the "stuff" of the modern economy you are not going back. The Bushmen, however, grew up that way and when exposed to other ways, MOSTLY DON'T LIKE IT. See here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24821867 . You are talking to an antinatalist though. The easy way to solve the problem of work is to not create more workers. I do not live so that we have public goods so that I can have pleasurable experiences. You do not live for public goods so that you can have pleasurable experiences. He does not live for public goods to have pleasurable experiences. Those are all assumptions of what SHOULD happen for other people.

I will say, going to the bathroom in camping fashion for a whole lifetime seems dismal to me. Also, this probably contributes to gastrointestinal diseases. But again, if you GROW UP with the lifestyle and when exposed to others STILL want to live in the communal/DIY setting of the Bushmen, that may say something.

I think the point of the article was not really to go back to the Bushmen's hunting-gathering life but how to overcome workaholism- the pervasive habit to "go to work". It is acknowledging that there are other modes of life that require less formal work and have been practiced in our early history. How do people get beyond this habitual thinking that may be simply cultural baggage rather than a rooted fact of life.

No. You didn't read enough and you projected something unrelated into what was explained in the book. Linguistics was never used in the link I provided to distinguish goal-oriented behavior from goal-directed behavior. Linguistics has nothing to do with it. — Harry Hindu

I answered you before I even read the article. Ironically, what I was talking about was not that far off from the distinction made in the book you linked. I mentioned linguistic which was a more specific form of goal-directed behaviors. As the book/you mention, if it is not "distinct" then, it is not goal-directed simply goal-oriented as it's vague/basic instinctive behavior without purposeful direction. There are concrete steps that are adaptive to reaching the goal rather than basic programming that happen to produce better survival results due to vague responses to the environment.

Your namesake would have made the distinction between essential, or natural, pursuits and artificial pursuits. Natural pursuits being those like acquiring food, water, shelter, intercourse (but that is debatably essential), artificial pursuits being those imposed and constructed by society, like money, fame, and power. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I agree but, that wasn't the distinction I was making. My distinction was suffering caused by his core-framework of ceaseless desire which manifests in goals and consequently suffering and suffering caused by contingent harms that are not a necessity but happen nevertheless due to circumstances of living.

Without anyone else, there would be no real value to being an individual - a hermit is a hermit in relation to the rest of society. Our heritage (Heidegger) is rooted in the surrounding culture, heritage is literally part of who we are even if we don't like it. — darthbarracuda

I would agree with this for the most part. Heritage, society, culture, is the substance of our characters- no matter how rebellious we want to be towards the historical and cultural setting that created our psychological understanding of the world, it has shaped us, and we are always in relation to it.

I see his emphasis on heritage as an escape from the "nothing" - Heidegger isn't willing to see "nihilism" to it's end. He wants to save meaning and purpose by simply turning his gaze away. It's quite inauthentic. At least that's what I interpreted it as. — darthbarracuda

What do you think would be a more authentic version?

Who are you agreeing with? I didn't say that Aristotle falls into a category error; I posted that quote because I think there's wisdom in it. — Wayfarer

Oh I see. I thought you meant that Aristotle was making a naturalistic fallacy by saying that the goal of virtue is our telos because everything that was created must have an final cause, including humans. I would say that Aristotle jumped the gun here having a very tenuous basis for a) there being a final cause, and b) virtue being this final cause. He took the outcomes of "good decision-making" and made it into an arbitrary value. He probably saw what his Greek society thought was "successful" and made it into a whole virtue value system. This is not much different than Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs with the virtue-under-different-name "self-actualization" as final goal.

If you're a moral relativist, they must, because they're only directed by social conventions. If you're a moral realist, then they don't, because there are genuinely real and important goals that aren't dependent on social convention. — Wayfarer

Right, so what do you say? Are goals just something to fill the void, or something entailed in human behavior? The implication for nominal origin of goals is actually more startling than you might think. It means that through social convention, we have to justify where goals are coming from, why they are dominating, and how, if possible, to not construct them as it is simply a pervasive habit, not an absolute necessity.

I don't know if Schopenhauer would agree that the will is goal-directed. The will is blind and unconscious. And it's not goals can't be reached, more that desires can't be satisfied. 'Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.' But Schopenhauer also recognized asceticism as a way - indeed the only way - of freedom from the tyranny of will, and of the importance of compassion. — Wayfarer

But I did make this distinction when I said:

Much of what humans experience are the pangs of goals that are never satisfied that well up unconsciously via the essence of our (and all) being, namely Will. — schopenhauer1

So yes, the Will is blind, but then the mind that is mediated through the Fourfold Root of Sufficient Reason (through the phenomenal flipside of Will) will mediate Will with goals that frustrate and cause suffering. So it is a part of Schop's picture, but not on the side of Will (as thing-in-itself) but from the illusory phenomenal side where we have identities as subjects and objects, and goal-directed behavior. So Will manifests itself in the world of phenomena through our goals which are driven by a more deep-rooted ceaseless, goal-less, striving desire that is a manifestation of Will.

I agree that Aristotle seems to fall into a kind of category error in regards to human virtue. We were "meant" to live virtually as this is our telos. Designed objects and human endeavors are two different things and to equate them is to deflate a much more complex phenomenon into a much simpler one when it is not anywhere near the same thing except by loose analogy. So to refer back to the OP, does goal-directed behaviors fall into the nominal camp of social conventions? Are goals arbitrary ways to delineate how we spend our time? Can we function without these arbitrary groupings? What would that even look like to not have goals, however short or long-term?

Related to this, Schopenhauer's whole metaphysical and ethical schema had goal-driven behavior as a an important factor. Much of what humans experience are the pangs of goals that are never satisfied that well up unconsciously via the essence of our (and all) being, namely Will. In fact, goals are a main source of dissatisfaction in the human experience as they are often frustrated, temporary, cause anxiety, and allow for little reprieve. Interestingly, I don't think he delineates between the core suffering of goal-seeking dissatisfaction and the external or contingent harms that exist in our pursuit of goals. The goal may be to get back to your house safe, but the contingent circumstances of achieving this may cause pain along the way (stubbed your toe, got into an accident, got lost, etc.). Anyways, goals seem to be the biggest part of human behavior and it is often overlooked.

It explains the difference between goal-oriented and goal-directed behavior, with examples. He also has another book, "Mindreading Animals", both of which are an interesting read. — Harry Hindu

I'll try to read some of this. Yes, this is what I might have been getting at with Wayfarer. Goal-oriented is not linguistic-based. Or perhaps when an animal makes a tool he is goal-directed because the end goal is apparent and there are concrete steps, but his desire for food is goal-oriented as it is a vague feeling and not consciously thought about. But, even tool-making might be just problem-solving without the goal really consciously known. That is more cognitive science though.

The problem now is that, even if one recognises goal-directed behaviours as being biologically defensible, the question becomes 'which goals'? Obviously, from the perspective of evolutionary theory, the goals are always the same: successful reproduction and survival. But if that is taken as a philosophical purpose, then it is reductionist: our only 'goal' from that perspective, is to marry and have children. I suppose that's better than nothing - after all, Freud said the aim of his work was to enable people 'to work and to love' - but in the grand scheme, it leaves out nearly all of what philosophy was originally intended to encompass. Or so I would think. — Wayfarer

You have some interesting thoughts here and a nice history of biological thinking. Do you think that the "goals" you are talking about like reproduction and survival and "goals" that I am talking about in terms of linguistic-thought based goals (I want to go to X place to meet X person) are the same thing or wholly different?

I guess this is my goal.

Or, looking at it evolutionarily, natural-selection makes it so that people who are born have an inclination toward life. Part of what made you was natural selection's influence that made you inclined toward life.

And that was encoded in the genes from which yours were going to be chosen,, even before your own genes were finally determined by your conception. — Michael Ossipoff

But that's the naturalistic fallacy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Potentially all future suffering can be prevented if no one procreated. The "supposed" anguish of potential parents in not really an issue being it's just the already-person's problem and not a whole new life with challenges, burdens, thwarted desires, frustrations, harms, structural absurdity-of-life, striving-but-for-nothing, etc. Rather than post-hoc justifying the suffering of a whole new person (or persons), and then justifying it with phrases like "hey, they'll like life and will get through the bad because life itself is somehow inherently good" they can just not have that life in the first place and give any post-hoc justifications.

What if all the sapient beings chose not to procreate? No, there very well might be more sapient beings. I don't think Earth or anywhere is that important in the Grand Scheme. However, you seem to think that embodied souls is a part of the Grand Scheme, and they need some physical host to be embodied.. Reminds of interesting sci-fi plots.

What if no one ever had kids again.. would that mean the souls are finished wanting to be embodied in the physical world? Did they put up a mass strike?

If any of this were true, then we'd have to revamp our ethics and convict our parents, not the others who actually cause us suffering, for our suffering. We'd be putting our parents in prison rather than those that actually caused us suffering. — Harry Hindu

Oh men of straw.. behold. It means nothing whether someone else causes the suffering because life has suffering. If you believe the Schopenhauerean approach (my style) life is always suffering in structural terms. If you are a utilitarian or just any good/bad approach, then you know that inevitable harm will take place because that is a part of life. You don't need to know the perpetrators of the harm, you don't need to know when (usually right after birth is the start though), you don't have to know the kind of harm- you can simply say that harm will befall that otherwise will not take place and this will go on until death or at least 100+ years if the new person made it that far.

The fact is that I don't blame my parents as the source of my suffering. I blame those that cause my suffering. If that is how you feel then grow a set and go blame your parents for all the suffering you ever experienced and tell them you're going to sue them for the suffering you experience in life. In other words, be consistent in your philosophical worldview and put your money where your mouth is. — Harry Hindu

Nah, it's too late now. I'm more about the prevention of future harm. I also sympathize with folks who might not think in those terms.. I'm not a monster.. I don't yell at new mothers pushing their babies in strollers. I still have compassion for those even who cause new births and more suffering to occur. It is a big deal, but the approach also matters.

What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are. — Harry Hindu

The great thing is that if no one was born, no one feels the deprivation of whatever goods they may have had, since they never existed to care. No harm, no foul. However, if someone was born, harms will happen, so fouls have happened.

And non-people can never consent. Only people can. That dogs can't vote is not a massive ethical issue. It's not an ethical issue at all. — Sapientia

Oh please, this is rubbish. When a child is conceived and then gestates, and then is birthed into the world, that is "creating a new life". By creating a new life, they created a person who will suffer. The point is that the child that "will be born if conceived, gestated, and birthed" cannot retroactively consent to existing in the first place. Now, this is not my number 1 reason against birth, but I can see the logic of the OP.

When people are people, they have people problems. But your reverse thinking doesn't work. Yes, we can think about what will or might be, and act upon such thoughts, but it isn't reasonable to commit a reification fallacy, as you seem to be doing. — Sapientia

Why not? Why can't someone say "Whatever child might be born from the conception, gestation, and birth that may take place cannot be consented prior to its own birth, ergo I will not cause a person to be born that, de facto, cannot be consented in the first place". This seems logical to me. You don't need to know that actual identity of the person who will be born, just that someone will be born that cannot be consented.

When you state that people can't consent to being born, there's either a controversial ethical implication or it's trivial. Take your pick. It's lose-lose. (Thanks critical thinking ability). — Sapientia

Nope on both fronts actually, so keep thinking more critically.

Indeed, why cause the burden of life to exist in the first place for a new person when there did not have to be a burden in the first place? To see it have to overcome obstacles? What they will say is that there are goods that just must be experienced (relationships, accomplishment, entertainment, pleasure, learning, self-actualization, etc.). Apparently someone NEEDS to be born in order to experience these goods, despite the burdens of life and any structural or contingent suffering that will or may occur.

A-sociality and anti-sociality by themselves aren't mental illnesses at least in my book. They may be perceived by the subject as afflictions, in which case the person may need some assistance, and it need not be from somebody in the mental health field. People have many problems which are not mental health problems. Like they may have abysmal social skills -- a potentially significant problem and not necessarily having anything to do with mental health. Lots of people (most people? Is it a feature of humanness?) manage to be pains in the ass without having anything wrong with their mental health. — Bitter Crank

What's your views on things like personality disorders and how they might affect social interactions in particular? Personality disorders, more so than anxiety disorders or depression, are manifested in the poor social interactions that manifest from those who may have these disorders. Thus, what looks like just someone who has abysmal social skills might have an underlying personality disorder. Of course, it may be that someone just has abysmal social skills. I guess when does one look deeper and when does one say that it is just a feature of this person but no underlying issue?

If death is the end of it all, if we simply cease to exist, then why is it important to be moral? I'm not sure if you would argue that it is important to lead a morally fulfilling life. I assume you would, otherwise why say that it is immoral to procreate, and stand up for the morally right decision?

Consequently, if the meaning was in leading a morally fulfilling life, then by not procreating you purposefully take away a chance from a new person to lead a meaningful, morally fulfilling life. — Coldlight

I don't agree with the premise that one has to lead a "morally fulfilling life". One can be moral, but "leading a morally fulfilling life" has a different connotation. Leading a morally fulfilling life means that there is some fulfillment from morality. I do not see that as the case of morality. Rather, it is a set of standards of how humans should treat each other. Also, if it is "immoral to procreate" than by procreating people so they can "fulfill" the duty to not procreate would defeat the goal of not procreating in the first place, which would also make this rule absurd. In order to follow the antintatalist principle, you do not procreate out of prevention of a future person's suffering. You do not need to be fulfilled from this.

To expand this to Schopenhauer- we all are manifestations of Willing and the only thing to do to temper it, according to him, is to quiet it through denial, which is roughly similar to living according to ascetic Buddhist/hermit lifestyle practices. As an extension, a way to prevent future suffering is to prevent birth. Therefore, there is no morally fulfilling life as an obligation here. Rather, if one wants to quiet the Will, then one should do X. One does not have to do X but then one won't quiet the Will. One is not obligated to do X though.

So the takeaways here are that "morally fulfilling life" is not really a goal (it's made up)- there is no obligation to live a morally fulfilling life, just to be moral perhaps. Also, if we did follow your principle of leading a morally fulfilling life and apply it to antinatalism, it absurdly leads to the idea that we must have people so that they don't have people. Rather, people do not need to be born, and further, should be prevented from being born out of preventing the burdens, harms, and suffering of the future child. There needs to be no added "and we must be fulfilled from doing this". Finally, if we were to move from straight-up antinatalism to Schopenhaurean morality- his is more of a hypothetical imperative, not an obligation. IF you want to diminish Will, you must deny it by living in roughly ascetic practices similar to certain Buddhist practices. Further, Schopenhauer has a conception of empathy towards fellow man. A more enlightened character would have a "moral sense" of empathy whereby their Will is diminished by being less individuated. Thus Schopenhauer's moral theory regarding empathy is based on moral sense and perhaps how attuned a character is to this moral sense which is based on a nature that is less inclined to follow the dictates of one's Willing nature.