I am not denying that it is possible to wonder what a ball thinks like or what it is like to be a ball. it is entirely possible, for instance, to wonder what it is like to be the number 7.
What I am claiming is that these are self-evidently confused wonderings.

Go into a restaurant and ask about the colour of a dish on the menu, or ask about its flavour, or its smell, or its texture, or if it sizzles or not. All perfectly legitimate questions to which an answer will be provided. Then ask what the dish thinks like.
That's not a legitimate question. You may wonder what the dish thinks like, but your reason - or at least, the reason of most of us - declares loud and clear that such wonderings make as little sense as wondering how heavy Beethoven's fifth symphony is. That is, they reflect category errors.

And if you create someone then they.....wait for it.....exist!

Again, slowly this time: you can only impose something on someone who exists at some point.

No, you can't impose existence on the non-existent.

Saying something doesn't make it so (well, sometimes it does, but not in this case). You assert that rising prosperity causes people to have fewer children rather than it being the other way around. Well, it's both and, like I say, I have explained at length why not having any kids would mean the economy would boom - I am not going to go through it again, just do the sums. But presumably by your confused logic those prosperous economies in which there is little reproduction going on are not really prosperous at all - due to the low reproduction. I mean, you think that it is good for the economy for people to have kids. You better tell that to those in the prosperous economies - that way they can have more kids and be even more prosperous!

Tell you what, you invest your money in economies in which the average person has ten kids, and I'll invest my money in those economies with the lowest rates of reproduction on the planet, and we'll see who does best. I'm betting on me - and you are too, because you're not going to invest a penny in those economies are you?

The less they know, the less they know it. You can impose existence on someone, because a necessary condition on an imposition - that the person who is being imposed-on exist at some point - is satisfied. By contrast, you cannot impose non-existence on someone who does not, has not, and will not exist, for that self-same condition is NOT satisfied. The problem is that you do have to be above a certain IQ level to see this.

Total and utter gibberish. All objects are either simple or complex. if you think not, then describe the third category. You won't because you can't. Tara.

Yes you are. If you procreate you are imposing life here on someone. They exist - you made them exist.
by contrast, if you don't procreate, then you're not imposing anything on anyone.
You can't impose something on someone who does not exist. But you can impose something on someone who does exist.
This is getting painful.

I don't think I misunderstand it at all. Which premise in which of my arguments are you disputing?

As for panpyschism having lots of proponents - er, no it doesn't, it just has a fancy name and is associated with a philosopher who has long hair and thinks he's a rock star.

Numbers don't mean anything, it is evidence that counts. But if you're (misguidedly) interested in numbers, then my view wins hands-down. The thesis that your mind is an immaterial soul and not your brain or any other physical thing is far and away the prevailing view among reflective people, now and throughout history.

No, I don't agree with that.
But you can't answer a question with a question, so kindly answer mine.

You can't impose something on the non-existent. Think about it.

question begging. You're assuming - not showing - that the economy would tank if everyone stopped procreating. I've argued that the exact opposite is the case. I've explained why at length. Just do the math, as the Americans say. Or alternatively, quickly inspect those economies in which people have loads and loads of children and compare them to economies in which people have fewer children and see which ones you think are doing better.

Anyway, for someone who pretends to be interested in keeping things focussed on topic, you're doing a good job of wandering from it.

the issue is whether it is ethical to procreate, not how wise it is in terms of pension planning. It is, in fact, extremely unwise in terms of pension planning - I will be a much richer older person without kids than with, I guarantee it - but that's not the issue. For even if having kids was a good pension plan (and it really isn't - just do some research if you don't believe me), that wouldn't make it ethical to have them.

You clearly don't understand the antinatalist arguments.

it is wrong, other things being equal, to impose significant things on other people without their prior consent .

Procreative acts do that - therefore they are wrong, other things being equal.

How on earth does that imply that we ought to kill ourselves? It doesn't follow at all.

It is also wrong to want to be loved unconditionally and to create someone who'll do so. Most procreative acts are peformed for such reasons and/or have that upshot.

How on earth does it follow from this that we ought to kill ourselves?

You haven't addressed anything I've argued.

Do you deny that all objects that exist are either complex or simple? If so, what is this third kind of thing that is neither simple or complex?

If you accept that all things are either complex or simple (and you must, for they exhaust the possibilities), then do you think that there can be an infinity of complex things? Or, to put it another way, do you believe that an object can have an actual infinity of ingredients?

if you agree that no object can have infinite ingredients, then you must agree, on pain of stupidity, of if anything exists, some simple things exist.

And if you agree that some simple things exist, and understand that this means they cannot be created or destroyed, then you agree that some things can exist by themselves.

Self-evident is synonymous with intuitively clear, if intuitively clear means 'clear to our rational intuitions'. 'Self-evident' does not mean what you say. It means the same as 'evident to reason' (and, as that which is evident to our reason is made so by the fact we have rational intuitions that represent it to be the case, self-evident is also synonymous with 'clear to our rational intuitions').
But we don't need to get into one of those pointless discussions about how words are used. For I agree that it is indeed self evident that if all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs (for this is something our reason represents to be the case)

So, what I am saying is that it is self-evident - or clear to our rational intuitions, or represented to be the case by our reason - that objects that possess sensible properties do not also possess mental ones.

Why else do we consider someone insane who takes seriously that that their tea may be thinking something?

Why else do most reflective humans - now and throughout history - think that their minds are not sensible objects?

Why else do most contemporary philosophers working in this area acknowledge that it is challenging to figure out how a sensible thing could be conscious?


Yes, I understand what panpyschism is. But a label is not evidence. I have presented three arguments against such a view (you say there is no proof it is false - well, if my arguments can't be refuted, then there demonstrably is).

Here:

1. If the reason of most people represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case other things being equal.
2. the reason of most people represents their minds to be positively lacking sensible properties.
3. Therefore, there is good evidence that our minds lack sensible properties (that is, that they are not our brains).

Another:

1. If the reason of most people represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case, othe rthings being equal.
2. The reason of most people represents objects that have sensible properties to be positively lacking to be lacking in mental properties
3. therefore, we have good evidence that objects that possess sensible properties positively lack mental properties

And another;

1. If an object is material, then it is divisible
2. My mind is not divisible
3. Therefore my mind is not material

My 'mind' thinks, PoeticUniverse. My brain does not. Or at least, I see no evidence that it does and plenty that it doesn't. But by all means just conflate the two for comedy purposes.

And I will be supported when I retire - I'll pay for support. And the people I pay will be people who've been unjustly burdened with the same problem I've been burdened with. And they'll be grateful I'm paying them.
Let's be clear: the fact I may need support when I'm old is a problem my parents are responsible for, not me. I think they should pay for it. But obviously they're not, and they probably won't be around when I'm old. So, I'll pay someone else to look after me, if I need it. And if I can't afford it, and if the state isn't willing to pay someone on my behalf, then I'll starve to death. That'd probably take about a week - one grim week in the larger scheme of things isn't too bad, and anyway, I don't think I am justified in burdening another person with all the same problems (and doing so without asking) just to try and avoid that grim week from occurring. (And it'd probably occur even if I did procreate, for most kids don't actually look after their parents).

No, why would I be happy about it?

They're already around. I'm one of them. There are loads of them. Go to a city and look around - the people you see doing jobs, they're the workers.
What, you think if people stopped procreating everyone who currently exists disappears?

It may not be self-evident to everyone (the insane, for example, are a notable exception - they often think extended objects are thinking things). But it is self-evident to most. And even those who think that minds are our brains acknowledge this, for they acknowledge that it is prima facie hard to understand how an extended object can bear a conscious state.
So it is - undeniably - self-evident that extended objects don't think. That doesn't prove they don't think, for appearances, including rational appearances, can be deceptive. But it means the burden of proof is one the person who says they can think.
So, where's the evidence my brain thinks?

Again, you're just presupposing that a 'good' economy keeps on going. That's absurd. What's better - an economy that keeps going for a million years but in which everyone is horribly poor, or an economy that lasts 100 years in which the majority of people are very well off?

Surely the latter. That's what stopping procreating would give us. And it isn't as if the absence of the economy would be bad for anyone - no-one would exist at that point, by hypothesis.

Consider: at the moment there are two massive groups who are unproductive and cost us all lots and lots and lots of money: children and the elderly. They produce nothing, and they cost a ton. They're supported by the largest group - the group in the middle. Us (assuming you're not elderly).

Now, if everyone stopped procreating, what would happen to the size of those groups? Well, one of them - the children - would rapidly reduce in size, as no more children are being produced and all of those that have been produced move into the productive central group - the one that produces all the money that the other two groups depend on.

Eventually the child group will disappear altogether, at which point we'll have a massive central group (for we are in that group the longest) and an elderly population. But that's better - that's a better situation economically than one in which you have the elderly AND the children.

Note too, all the time and money previously wasted on children can now be dedicated to the elderly. It is only the last generation that would have a problem - but, as I say, they'd know it was coming and could make provision.
Plus, it wouldn't be that bad. The real problem with being elderly is being elderly and that's something you have regardless of how many children there are around.

The selfish ones are parents who have kids for their own ethically reprehensible reasons and then expect others to subsidise their upkeep.

The children, of course, are the innocent parties in all of this. But parents owe their children a living, not me. I'll pick up the tab if necessary, for it is not the children's fault they exist. But other things being equal, the parents owe their kids everything.

I don't rely on anyone to support me. I pay far more in tax than I receive in benefits. Unlike many parents.
The fact is I am currently forced, by the tax system, into subsidising other people's idiotic and unethical procreative acts. My taxes pay for schools and health care for other people's children. Parents should pay for those things, not me.
Again, I am not the selfish one here. I am supporting others. No-one is supporting me.

No, where did I say that?

You asked me how it would be good for the economy. I explained. You ask me about a problem that would afflict the final generation alone. I explained that they would indeed face a problem, but it is one they'd have a lifetime to solve. You then said that this is selfish. No, it is just an explanation of why not procreating is good for the economy.
As to what's selfish - well, forcing someone else to exist so that they can provide for you in your dotage and then saddling them with exactly the same problem....now THAT'S selfish!

I don't understand your reply. How often do you wonder what a cup of tea thinks like? Never, I'll wager. Why? Because it is self-evident that extended objects do not have mental properties. Extended objects have sensible properties, but not mental ones.

As well as being something our reason tells us directly, it also tells us the same thing indirectly, as I pointed out.

For instance, it says that our minds are indivisible. Yet any extended object is divisible. So, our reason is telling us that our minds are not extended objects.

You ask 'where is it?' That's a confused question. Only extended objects have locations.

Note too that this thread is about the 'ethics' of procreation - so, is it ethical for me to have a kid out of need to have someone to care for me when I'm old, especially when in doing so I burden that kid with exactly the same problem?
No, I don't think that's fair at all.

That problem will afflict the final generation alone, and they'll have had plenty of time to make provision for it.
You and I don't need to worry.

Note, THIS is to appeal to reason:

1. If someone says something that contradicts something in the Quran, then they are wrong
2. Bartricks has said something that contradicts something in the Quran
3. Therefore, Bartricks is wrong

Now, that's an unsound argument - its first premise is obviously false to anyone who is not a Muslim - but it is valid. And so in making such an argument you are still appealing to reason.

Reason, like I say, is the ultimate court of appeal in all things and you ignore her at your peril.

without using reason, explain how I'm wrong.

No it isn't.

You're confusing 'lasting economy' with 'good for the economy'. I take it that what's good for the economy is equivalent to what is in the economic interests of its members.

Well, if everyone stopped procreating tomorrow, most of us would be better off. Children aren't productive. They cost the economy money -vast,vast amounts - for the first 18 years of their lives. How is it good for the economy to have a vast fund of people who are costing us all money?

Take the economy of me and my partner. We don't have kids. We're far wealthier than those of a similar age who do have kids. And both work full time - because we don't have kids - and we have a large household income as a result and no costly children to have to spend it on.

it would be very bad for the conomy of me and my partner if we had kids. We'd be poorer.

Well, now apply that to everyone else. If everyone else stopped procreating, they'd all get wealthier. And they'd have lots of leisure time in which to spend their money.

So, if everyone stopped procreating we'd have more workers (because more people could work), more money and more leisure in which to spend it.

What you're focussing on is just keeping the economy going for as long as possible. That's misguided.

Also, what you've said is false - it's entirely possible for a text that promotes antinatalism to survive through every generation until the last. If people are persuaded by it, they'll not procreate. But that doesn't prevent the children of those who were not persuaded by it being persuaded by it.

What bearing does that have on the ethics of it?

Why don't you say what you think, rather than telling me about what others might say?

If everyone stopped procreating tomorrow the economy would boom. Procreation is bad for the economy. How on earth is it good for it?

you're trying to derail the discussion so that it becomes about what is and isn't off topic. Stop it - YOU are the only one who is off topic here.

Your case for antinatalism seems weak to me. Obviously I am an anti-natalist - I think procreating is one of the most despicable things most people will do - but you seem to misunderstand the case for it.

I don't think that our lives are full of misery. Far from it: I think most lives contain more pleasure than pain (even the misery-filled lives of those who procreate). The point, though, is that it is wrong to impose things on others without their prior consent, other things being equal. And furthermore, it is wrong to be the kind of person who wants to be loved unconditionally, and it is wrong to make others love you unconditionally, and so on.

So my case appeals to both Kantian and Virtue-ethics considerations.

Note too, that it is definitely 'off topic' to go on and on about how 'off topic' you perceive someone's posts to be.

As I have already said, you don't get to determine what this thread is about - the thread's title does that. And it is about whether procreating is ethical.

You can't refute arguments by being bored by them. There are lots of boring, but good arguments out there.

Now, as you're exclusively interested in what bearing global warming has on this, I have already said what I believe (and you have not engaged with it). Namely, that if it is prima facie wrong to do anything that warms the planet, then it is definitely wrong to procreate as the more of us there are, the warming the planet will be. There - a simple and boring point.

That's question begging. I am not off topic. And the reason you don't want to engage with my arguments is that you'd lose.