Research on the effects of long term low interest rates appears to show that they are a major driver of inequality. This is something that was only investigated recently, because low rates were thought to be fairly benign. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They are— yes. Why? Because it ultimately leads to increased stock prices, and the top 10% own more than 80% of the stocks. So that will increase their wealth. Meanwhile the 90%, whose real wages have stagnated for decades, simply have less interest to pay on mortgages and credit cards and car loans.

That doesn’t mean raising interest rates will help either. The wealthy will find alternatives. They will be fine one way or another. If workers wages rise 5%, inflation goes up 8% — they increase the prices of their product. If stocks take a dive, they’ll invest in bonds or commodities or emerging markets. Or lobby the government for more aid, or more tax cuts, or find a way to avoid paying taxes altogether. Plenty of options for the wealthy — they will do just fine, and inequality will continue to rise long after the Fed hikes rates.

Real wages have continued to stagnate/decline, and now the borrowing/debt that fills in the gap between household income and the kind of expenditures that sustain a “middle class” life (house, car) or working class life (rent, car, food, gas, utilities, healthcare) will simply be more expensive over the long run. So the 90% will be asked to tighten their belts, work harder, give up any dream of being debt-free or owning property, forget buying a house and probably forget having kids. This is in fact what we’ve already seen.

So there’s no chance the Fed raising rates will change inequality. There’s little chance it even brings down general inflation, come to think of it, since the money they created didn’t go to people, it went to companies — so that they could use it to boost the wealth of the elites who own 80% of their stocks. So it may lower equity markets. It will probably lower housing markets too.

Otherwise there’s little that the Fed can do about wages, about price gouging, about stock buybacks, about supply chain disruptions, commodity shortages, climate change or wars. Inflation is global right now, for global reasons.

simply look at the percentage of all equities held by the top 0.1%, 1%, and 10% wealthiest individuals in developed economies. Rising stock values inflate the value of assets largely held by the wealthy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes.

Corporations borrow money— cheap money— and this increase their debt. Record levels of corporate debt. Where does this money go? The same question can be asked about subsidies, bailouts, and tax cuts.

They often make record profits— and where do the profits go anyway?

The answer is: roughly 90% of net earnings are distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks.

Stock buybacks are also done with borrowed money and tax cut savings.

When it comes to bailouts, as we all saw in 2009, the top executives end up with millions of dollars of compensation— far more than the average worker. The current ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay is about 350:1.

All of this is justified by trickle-down economics. If you favor the supply-side (the owners/employers/corporations), you make sure you cut their taxes, give them cheap loans, and if things get too bad you bail them out through QE and fiscal gifts — because they’re too big to fail. This is basically the last 40 years of neoliberal policy — ironically the age of “free markets” and “small government.”

The result has been, predictably, the wealth inequality you describe, monopolization, and corporatocracy. But it’s really a power inequality. And the bigger that gap becomes, the worse things will get.

The Fed raising interests rates won’t change a thing. Except make the 90% more poor and make it harder to buy a house and take out loans. It’ll saddle even more people with ridiculous levels of harder-to-pay off debt.

Perhaps the right place to start is with thing, what is it? What's a thing? Then and only then should we move to an analysis of nothing. — Agent Smith

Indeed.

Instead of thing, I suggest using “being.”

Then there’s a question about beings (things, individuated entities) and being (thing-ness).

When we think about beings we tend to do so in terms of what is before us in experience— what is present in the world or in our minds — concepts, classes, words, numbers, shapes, colors, individual things, material objects, etc.

It almost can’t be helped; in the same way it’s much more likely that we reflect upon our environment and not what’s happening in China or on Mars.

The same is true of our bodies. The process of my kidneys aren’t before me in experience. It’s a kind of absence. Ditto with habits and automaticity— so much of our lives goes simply unnoticed. Taken for granted.

Is absence a kind of “nothing”, then? In the sense that it’s not present before us, in the background, invisible, withdrawing — then it’s very much like nothing. It’s not a thing in the sense we normally mean “thing” or “being” as that which is known, present, and “there.”

Banned @Jackson for low quality posts and continually showing no interest in discussion.

t, about ten years from now, this will be recognised as one of those watershed moments when the battle was lost. — Wayfarer

It’s not lost by a long shot.

That’s pretty cool.

So you see all of this as inevitable? Better to just get away from it?

I hope you’re wrong, if that’s the case.



Pomerantz has the right idea.

Imagine arguing that the species go extinct because life involves suffering.

I agree with Nietzsche: kind of pathetic. Let them to it!

:smile: Yeah, best leave the professor to his highly logical and super-complicated arguments.

A very stable genius.

I was pretending to be a professor frustrated at his lazy students. And I wasn't pretending.. — Bartricks

Yes, because you’ve definitely shown yourself to be professorial.

“Self evident.”

Anyway— Nice try at dolling up your feelings that life is a mistake.

Yeah it was clear last year that Manchin was aiming for nothing whatsoever. I imagine nothing passes this time too. And there goes the next 10+ more years of inaction. Combined with the 30-40 years of courts acting against any action whatsoever.

Leaves little option but to unionize workplaces and start striking, and shift to the state and local level.

No, the act of procreation creates a person - a person who deserves more than they can possibly be given and who deserves no harm (yet deserves no harm). — Bartricks

I think they deserve the power of invisibility myself. That life doesn’t provide them that is completely unjust, in my view— hence I won’t have kids.

the act of not procreation creates no person and does not deprive a person of anything they deserve. — Bartricks

It deprives them of joy and happiness.

Up. Your. Game. — Bartricks

How about pretending to be an adult for a few pages?



An attempt at wit? You really nailed me, I guess. Bravo. 10 points for you and your “game.”

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread. — DA671

Not even that interesting; rather boring, actually. Listening to people come up with elaborate, circuitous ways to justify their interpretation of life as a mistake isn’t all that interesting.

“They meet a sick man, or an old man, or a corpse -- and immediately they say: "Life is refuted!" But only they are refuted, and their eyes, which see only one side of existence.” — Nietzsche

A non-existent person can't deserve anything. — Bartricks

Ok— so there goes your argument.

A baby doesn’t deserve or not deserve anything either. Deserve in this context is meaningless. That you don’t want to believe that, despite multiple people explaining it to you, is your issue.

:lol:

A corporate statist defending the Great One. How shocking.

The more I think about it, the more this entire thread looks like a giant expression of resentment towards one’s parents because life didn’t turn out how one wanted it.

Kill yourself and/or don’t have kids. Stop forcing your therapy onto others.

It is self-evident to virtually everyone that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to any harm. — Bartricks

It’s self evident that if a person has done nothing, they deserve the chance to live.

I guess that settles it. Self evidence.

That's not remotely controversial. — Bartricks

Yet several people — including myself — have rejected it for many reasons. :chin:

Which premise do you think is false then, eh? — Bartricks

:lol: Is this a nervous tic?

Your reason tells you that if someone has done nothing they deserve to come to harm???? — Bartricks

Deserves got nothing to do with it— to quote Clint Eastwood.

They don’t “deserve” anything. Things happen in life — some things we call pain others pleasure. Both are part of life. To argue one deserves to live a harm-free life is exactly the same as saying one deserves non-life — which is exactly what you’re advocating anyway. You try to take a long way around in an attempt to justify it using what’s supposed to pass for “logic,” when in reality it’s a concocted premise designed to reach the conclusion you want: don’t have kids.

So all this talk about “deserve” and “harm free” rests on nothing but fantasy. Which you’re welcome to hold — I have no issue with that.

For others, life is very good indeed—despite your value judgments about what’s “deserved” or what’s good or bad. Your feelings do not a universal moral principle make.

If you deserve a harm free life, you’re free to kill yourself. That’s a personal choice.

The temperature data fits the climate change hypothesis alright, but what/where are the other hypotheses? — Agent Smith

Early on there were many hypotheses — natural cycles, water vapor, and a host of others. These hypotheses have been abandoned.

Also the predictions made over several decades have now become true— in fact the effects have taken place quicker than expected, for example in the melting of the ice caps and severity of draughts.

This is why the idea is so widely accepted. But now it’s completely obvious to the point where even fossil fuel companies acknowledge it publicly. All one has to do is check the global temperature averages which break records year after year.

it contains the same error that is common to all metaphysics: it ignores, or forgets, the involvement of the subject in the question. — Angelo Cannata

Just as this statement ignores the fact that the notion “subject” is equally silly.

Thinking about this the other day and finally the question that trumps all questions hit me. Why is there something rather than nothing ? — Deus

Well you’re not alone! :smile:

I recommend Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics for an analysis of this question. Fascinating, in my view.

I’m not “fighting” anyone. If someone presents an argument, I’m interested in understanding it. This one happens to be unconvincing — and probably not worth questioning much more, given the responses.

But there I go taking for granted— wrongly, I’m sure — that you’re truly interested in an answer and not simply posturing, as nearly every interaction with you has demonstrated.

Habits die hard. Do go on about how authoritarian I am, etc.

Biodiversity collapse is exacerbated by climate change, as you know. Whether it occurs without a rapidly changing climate -- probably, but certainly not to the degree it is. So I'd still place the greater emphasis on lowering emissions, as that will benefit biodiversity collapse greatly. Other solutions to the biodiversity issue are more than welcome.

They deserve no harm and they deserve a happy life.
And they won't get that. — Bartricks

People live happy lives all the time, despite there being harm. So this statement is ridiculous.

True, they won't get "no harm" -- because harm is part of life. But it's equally absurd to claim life ought to be harm-free...which you do, without further explanation, support, evidence, or logic.

They deserve a harm free happy life. That is not what they are going to get. So it's shitty to do that - to create a person who will deserve far, far more than they can be given. — Bartricks

According to you and your peculiar notion of what is "deserved" in life -- namely, the impossible.

Even if you said something like "everyone born deserves to have enough food to eat," that would be at least coherent. Arguing for a "harm-free life" is like asking for a triangle with 2 sides. You never wanted a triangle to begin with. Likewise, you simply don't want life -- because a "harm-free life" is complete fantasy. Your own personal fantasy -- fine. But why come here and try to convince others not to have kids because of your own bizarre interpretation of life?

If you think it is as solid as air, tell me which premise is false. — Bartricks

Why do you keep asking people this when, once someone does tell you which is false, you simply declare it to be self-evidently true?

The line of your debate:

You: "Don't say x, y, or z -- only tell me which premise is false!"

Interlocutor: "Premise k is false."

"No, premise k is true."

"How?"

"It's self-evidently true."

"I don't see any reason to believe it."

"That's because you're an idiot."

The problem is that it's not even an argument, because it's not interested in persuading anyone and doesn't support itself in any way other than "this is a self-evident, undeniable truth" and then making up a story.

Which, by the way, is exactly what religious minded people often do. "God commands us to do x" or "God says x about y," and go on to construct a complicated narrative with corresponding proscriptions for everyone else. Yet at the heart of the matter is simply "I believe in God."

So it is for at least this line of antinatalism.

A person who hasn't done anything doesn't deserve to come to harm.
That's not controversial. You think it is. It ain't. — Bartricks

I think it is, yes. You declaring "it ain't" isn't an argument.

Since most people do seem to prefer existence despite the harms, it doesn't seem right to solely focus on preventing harms. — DA671

Exactly. Why not make the opposite argument, only with joy/happiness?

It's because the entire argument rests on a fantasy about life being good only if there's no harm. Which is impossible so, in other words, life is bad.

So yes, a fabrication of humans, but like any linguistic practice, definitely has its fuzzy boundaries. — Isaac

Definitely.

Yes. That is the most interesting question. It dogs all antinatalist arguments. Why are we reducing harm when there's no one around to benefit from the lack of harm? Harm is something to reduce so that someone can enjoy the lack of it, not something to reduce just because. I was talking in another thread, coincidentally, about the fetishisation of philosophical questions. I think this universal harm-reduction is just such a fetishisation. It's not a feeling anyone actually has, it's a principle it is possible to have and so people, of a certain ilk, will try it on, so to speak, like dressing up in Cowboy costume, just to see how it feels. — Isaac

Yes, and beyond that take it as part of their identity. Many people -- myself included at times -- want to take a generally good principle and universalize it, when every specific situation is almost always more complicated. I see this mistake in a broad range of activities, from monetary policy to poker playing.

These are metaethical issues. If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, you're welcome as then you'd also be committed to concluding that the Nazis did no wrong. — Bartricks

I don't accept subjectivism, nor that the Nazi's did no wrong.

They're ethical issues and metaethical issues, sure. If you don't want to defend your argument, that's OK. But you started this thread, and put forward an argument. Then you continued, over and over again, to complain about how no one was challenging your premises. I'm doing exactly that: engaging with the argument by challenging one of your premises.

Antinatalism is a normative theory, not a metaethical theory. So if you are forced to stray into metaethics, you've lost. — Bartricks

:smile: It would do you well to put down these sophomoric ideas about "debate," rules of debate, syllogisms, fallacies, and whatever else you've picked up from your reading or classes.

You made a statement. I didn't make the statement -- you did. So the onus is on you, if you care to persuade anyone (which I assume you do -- otherwise why bother posting in a public place?), to defend and support your statement. You don't "win" anything by default, simply by declaring a category error.

Here is the statement: "Innocents deserve a harm-free life."

That is what is being challenged, and that is what you need to flush out and support. If you can't do that, just say so. If you simply fall back on "It's self-evident, and doesn't need justification," then do so -- and we can end the conversation there. Because in that case I can say the opposite, declare it is also self-evident, and go on my merry way without having to waste any more time.

Moral properties are God given, but that's no premise in my argument. My argument requires only that one recognize that persons are created innocent and that an innocent person deserves no harm (and that it is wrong - other things being equal - to create injustices). Those claims are not reasonably deniable. — Bartricks

And yet that's EXACTLY what I'm denying, and why your argument fails to convince me. So what are you going to do about it? Simply declare me "unreasonable"? Insult me? Give up? Again, that's fine. I will simply remain completely unconvinced and go on knowing that your argument rests on nothing but personal whim about what life "should" be.

Or you can support it further. Can't be explained further? That's fine too. In that case we've reached an impasse, and I can with equal support make the claim that life, although it involves harm, is good -- and therefore creating life is good.

Sure. Here's a brief overview I wrote not long ago:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

Climate change (due to CO2 emissions), is it falsifiable? — Agent Smith

Yes.

What predictions have been made by climate scientists in re climate change? — Agent Smith

Lots.

"Extreme weather" is just too vague for me and others too I presume. — Agent Smith

Climate isn’t weather.

If you’re truly curious, there’s thousands of options to study it and mountains of evidence.

Apologies. I’m trying to engage mostly with the OP. I view your argument as a separate one. Although interesting, I haven’t had the time to give a careful reading.

o deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you — Bartricks

Ok. But who decides what's deserved? That doesn't fall from the sky, I assume. It's not God-given. So who decides? Who decides what is deserved? You?

You want to argue from the Platonic realm of ideas -- that the laws of logic dictate it, etc. But clearly that's not working. If this is something that's as self-evident as you make it seem, it should be able to be shown and proven and as demonstrable as Newton's laws or mathematical theorems. You haven't done so yet.

What you have so far done is made the statement "this is what is deserved," and claimed that you take it as a self-evident truth. Well, OK, that's fine -- if that's what you believe, then you're 100% correct, logically and consistently, in not creating life. Who's stopping you from not having kids? Who's even arguing that you SHOULD have kids (certainly not me!)? Be happy.

But if you're going to try to make normative claims which apply to others -- like me and others on this forum -- and cast moral judgments, or attempt to persuade people not to do something, then you have been, if you pardon me, a very poor advocate. Why? Because from what I've read -- including with myself earlier in this discussion -- you're dismissive, condescending, sarcastic, and adversarial -- often to the point of contempt. That's no way to try to persuade others to stop making moral mistakes. If you have the better argument, show it. Demonstrate it. Don't hide behind Logic 101 accusations of "fallacies" and other rhetorical nomenclature; try to meet people where they are and walk them through it. Otherwise you give the appearance of being intellectually and emotionally immature, or worse: an utter fraud. You can do better than that.

So again I repeat the question above in a rephrased way: Why should *I* believe (or "think" or "conclude") that life should be completely and totally absent from harm? And why is harm the focus?

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

An interesting way to put it. While I agree with it, I would further argue that they don't deserve anything -- beyond what human beings think they deserve (or don't deserve). And the answer to that question (What do human beings deserve?) is so personal that to try to find a general, abstract principle about it -- that is, one that applies in all or even most situations -- is a fool's errand.

If a person believes that a human being deserves the powers of invisibility, or the ability to fly, or telepathy or, as Bartricks does, to live a pain-free existence -- which are all impossible -- then that person should not have kids. God bless them -- may they be happy with that choice.

The interesting question for me is why they have that belief to begin with. Why is the expectation an unobtainable one? It's like asking for a square with three sides. If living a pain-free existence is the only just existence, then sure: existence is unjust. But that's a rigged game, so to speak -- rigged to draw the same conclusion over and over again. Why? Because life includes pain -- it's part of the phenomenon of being alive.

That's why I say it's a fundamentally negative (eschewing the word "pessimistic") view of human life. It says: human life is a mistake and it is unjust because there's pain (including, especially, the pain of "innocents" -- which everyone is admittedly born). Thus, better not to be born than to be born; better not to create life than to create life. That's what leads to beliefs like "innocents deserve no harm of any kind." which then get presented as if it's a logical law of nature or "self-evident truth." It isn't; there are further assumptions upon which it rests.

But in any case, that's your assertion. If you feel your parents owed you something -- specifically, a life free of any harm whatsoever, that's your business. But it's just that -- an assertion.
— Xtrix

No, it's not an 'assertion'. It's a 'conclusion'. — Bartricks

It's a belief, whether you call it an assertion or conclusion. That life should be harm-free is a belief. I see no evidence to support that belief one way or another, and you've offered none.

That doesn't make it "wrong" or inconsistent. It just makes it unconvincing...at least to me.

I don't believe life should be harm-free. I don't view that as a good, or something more desirable than life as it is.

I view life as it is as a good; and life as it is includes suffering. Thus, suffering is ultimately good too.

I would distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering, perhaps. But that's a different discussion.

The only relevant consideration is whether my conclusions follow from premises that are self-evident — Bartricks

Which they clearly aren't. If they were, I'd be agreeing with you.

If you create a person who deserves a harm-free happy life, and you do that of your own free will, then you owe them that. — Bartricks

They don't deserve a harm-free life. Harm-free lives are impossible. If that's what they deserve, then it's impossible to give it to them -- and so you get to your conclusion is one step.

Rather, they either (1) deserve life, as it is, or they (2) don't deserve life, as it is.

There's no third option. That's a fantasy. So given how things actually are, we're back to square one.

Now, I could assert: every person born deserves angel wings and the power of invisibility. That's impossible too, but we can fantasize about it. But I wouldn't use the fact that life falls short of that fantasy as a reason not to have kids. I could, I guess, but I think that'd be ridiculous.

I think it's equally unconvincing to argue you shouldn't have kids because life falls short of some harm-free fantasy.

--

Now, once more, in the pizza example James deserves something - a pizza.

The people in the pizza place can't give James what he deserves, because they only have shit pizzas.

So what ought they have done? Ought they have advertised cheese pizzas and let people order and pay for cheese pizzas - thus generating a deservingness of cheese pizzas - when they know full well that all they can possibly give people are shitted-upon pizzas?

No. Join the dots. Ought you procreate? No. — Bartricks

See above on why this analogy fails.

You know that if you procreate you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. — Bartricks

No, I don't "know" that. I don't believe that. I don't accept that. That's what I've been telling you for a while now.

They don't deserve a harm-free life. That's a made-up premise, or assertion, or conclusion. It's a belief -- and one that I'm well aware you hold. I do not hold that belief.

You don't have to procreate. If you procreate you know you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. You also know that you can't possibly give them that - the cupboard only has lives that have shit on them in it and you know full well that anyone you bring into being will have to live one of those slightly shat upon lives (and you know as well that some will have really really shitty ones...but let's not get distracted by that highly morally relevant consideration because my argument - my one - doesn't require that to be the case....just an itsy bitsy bit of shit will do). So you ought not to procreate, then, yes? You'll be creating a desert of something you can't provide. — Bartricks

This is a good illustration of why the analogy fails, as I outlined in the previous post above. You're equating the "shit" with "harm," as I highlighted. And that's where it breaks down. Why? Again: because harm is part of life. Or, to shift to your analogy to make it accurate: shit (harm) is part of the pizza (life). To expect life without harm is like expecting pizza without dough or a triangle without three sides. It's impossible. One doesn't say "I didn't order this three-sided thing -- I ordered a triangle!" Mutatis mutandis, life and harm.

So the question, once again, comes down to:

Should you create life or not create life?

Is life good or is it bad?

Is it worth being born, or not worth being born?

I answer all of the above in the affirmative. It is worth it, yes; it is good. Despite suffering, despite death, despite pain, loss, and heartache. I'd do it all again if I could, and I'm grateful for the chance -- grateful to my parents, grateful to the universe. If I were Christian or Muslim, I'd be grateful perhaps to God or Allah. But hey, that's me.

Does that mean I'll actually have kids? No. But there are other reasons involved in that, much more personal, subjective, value-laden, situational, and complicated -- reasons that far exceed the attempted generalized abstractions of this thread. And, I beg your pardon, also far more interesting.

The analogy is an extremely good one. Why? Because it models the relevant features. James orders a cheese pizza. And that means he now deserves to get one. THe relevant feature here is not the pizza, but the fact that James 'deserves' to receive a cheese pizza. — Bartricks

OK. But how is this relevant to life? No one says "I'll have one life, please" -- and then, because there's suffering in it, is indignant. They don't say: "This isn't what I asked for! I asked for life!"

You see why the analogy fails?

Shit is not part of pizza. If shit WERE a part of pizza (like dough is), you have no right to be upset that shit is on your pizza any more than you would that pizza is made of dough. That's simply part of the pizza.

It's true that in the real world, shit is NOT part of pizza. So you'd be right to be upset -- it's not what you ordered.

Let's bring it to life. By this analogy you're trying to characterize my argument as: "Just ignore the shit and look at everything else on the pizza." That's not what I'm arguing -- whether about pizza or about life. Life contains suffering and pain. I'm not saying "ignore the suffering and focus only on the joy," I'm saying life *IS* pain and it *IS* joy. You cannot have one without the other, they're both part of the term and phenomenon of "life" itself. Pain cannot be removed without removing life.

Back to the pizza. Shit is not part of pizza. Suffering is, however, part of life. If you ask for life, you're asking for suffering. If you ask for pizza, you're asking for dough. If you don't want suffering and you don't want dough, then you don't want life and you don't want pizza -- which is perfectly fine. You could ask, "Why?" and the answer would be: because I don't want suffering or I don't want dough.

The analogy fails because you're equating "shit" with harm in this analogy. To expect a pizza without shit on it is perfectly reasonable; to expect life without shit (harm) in it is like expecting a triangle with 2 sides -- insane.

What does the person at the restaurant say? Well, they say what you were saying. They say "but its mainly pizza - there's only a bit with shit on" — Bartricks

That's not what I'm arguing at all.

So, James deserves a cheese pizza. Not a cheese pizza with some shit on it. A cheese pizza. — Bartricks

True.

And an innocent person deserves a harm-free life. Not a life with some harm in it. A harm-free life. — Bartricks

No, because there is no such thing as a harm-free life. That's impossible, as you've agreed. That's like asking for pizza without dough. If the pizza shows up with dough, that's to be expected. Likewise, a life with suffering is to be expected -- it's simply part of it. Like death -- a part of life.

We can imagine a life without harm or suffering, sure. Concepts of heaven, for example -- or some other kind of perfection, ideal, paradise. But those are based on human conceptions of perfection and goodness, and they will vary.

It's like "deserving" a triangle with 2 sides. Well, that's impossible. A triangle has three sides. If you ask for a triangle, and you're upset that it shows up with 3 sides -- that just means you misunderstood what a triangle is.

Triangles comes with three sides. Life comes with suffering. Pizza comes with dough.

You either want these things or you don't.

The rest is superfluous and I'll skip it.

The question is whether life is worth living even though there is suffering. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly fine to have kids if one chooses to. If the answer is no, then the human species should become extinct -- yes? Which I'm not saying is illogical -- it's logical if you accept the premise, as the Buddhists do, that life is suffering and suffering should be eliminated. — Xtrix

That's not the question. — Bartricks

Humor me and answer it anyway. What do you think? Is life worth living or not?

If so, why? And why deprive others of this worthy experience? Why make an exception of yourself?

The argument in the OP does not assume that life is not worth living. — Bartricks

Yes it does. If it’s worth living — meaning it is, on the whole, a good — then it’s (in general) worth having kids. Despite the fact that it doesn’t happen to fit your definition of what’s “deserved.”

If life isn’t worth living — in this case because there is suffering, and no baby deserves any suffering whatsoever — then we shouldn’t have kids.

There's really no way around it, as a matter of logic. Otherwise you have to basically say, "No, life is wonderful and I'm just as happy as you are and want to go on living -- totally worthwhile as an adult; but not as a baby, which I was too at one point."

So life is good and worthwhile and a blessing, if you're grown up (like us), but it's still a mistake to have kids -- and it was still a mistake for our parents to have us?

It's contradictory, I'm afraid.

Either it's a mistake to have kids -- in which case, if that's your view, YOU are mistake. You should not have been born. Or it's not a mistake.

You seem studiously to be ignoring the actual argument made and addressing different ones. No premise of the argument I made assumed that life is not worth living. — Bartricks

I have addressed that premise multiple times and, thus, the argument.

And yes, it does assume life isn’t worth living. You’re simply not seeing it because it’s a few assumptions removed from the point about “deserving no harm.” I’ll keep trying, but ultimately there’s little I can do if you’re not willing to acknowledge it.

It doesn’t “refute” the argument, incidentally. I think this is partly what you’re thinking. But I don’t view pessimism as a refutation. If you don’t like the word pessimism— fine. We can use another term or phrase.

But if life is worth living — then it’s worth living in spite of the “unfairness” or “undeservedness” of suffering.

Otherwise you’re contradicting yourself.

But you already said you believe your own life was a mistake— and you fault your parents for it. But it’s still wonderful and worth living? How does this get reconciled?

Because if it’s worth it for YOU — despite being born innocent and having to endure suffering — then why is it NOT worth it for a future human being?

It's not about how worthwhile it is for someone living a life to continue living it. — Bartricks

Why is it worthwhile to continue living it when there’s undeserved suffering involved?

Using slaves to build the pyramids: wrong. You: "so we should destroy the pyramids?" — Bartricks

Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter. — Bartricks

It’s not about “deserving” anything. That word is a value judgment. It’s saying “suffering is bad for anyone born.” Ok, fine. But life is both suffering and happiness, pain and pleasure — they’re two sides of the same coin. So by saying they don’t deserve any pain, then they don’t deserve any life — because it’s impossible to live pain-free or suffering-free. It's not as if suffering is something that can be removed -- as if it's an evil imposed on what would be perfection. It's not a flaw, it's simply an aspect -- a part. And a part you ultimately believe should prevent us from choosing to have kids.

So again, this is the premise I’ve been arguing against from the beginning. It rests on nothing but your assertion and value judgment. Why you choose to say this instead of “no one innocent deserves life” is unknown, but that’s what you’re saying: no one should be born because life contains suffering and suffering is undeserved. No one should have pizza because it contains dough, and I don't like dough.

What if I were to argue instead: we should have kids because every kid deserves to experience joy? True, I’m ignoring suffering with this statement — but it’s as equally valid as yours, which ignores joy.

Again— what’s so terrible about suffering?

Since it’s part of life, they DO “deserve” to experience suffering -- because life is amazing!

It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter.

It assumes that harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved. Again, in no possible way is that a pessimistic assumption.

It assumes that life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here. That's not pessimistic. You accept it and everyone accepts it who isn't totally nuts.

Again: the reason you have to construe me as a pessimist is in order to be able to persuade yourself that some kind of psychological flaw explains my antinatalism rather than it being the logical implication of some extraordinarily plausible premises. That's wishful thinking. — Bartricks

Alright then -- forget pessimism. I retract that. It's clear to me your argument is predicated on it, but you don't agree. Fine. Makes no difference -- I was hoping you'd just acknowledge it, because I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of the argument, any more than saying "the glass is half empty" is somehow refuted because it emphasizes emptiness instead of fullness. But so be it.

Let's try to parse your argument out without references to pessimism, based exactly on what you said above.

First, let's be clear with our words so we're not talking past one another. I am using "harm" as synonymous with words like "suffering" and "pain" -- which are simply part of life. You seem to be fine with that, as you haven't indicated it's inaccurate.

Second, the word "deserve" is unclear. It implies being entitled, owed, or worth-of something. But according to who? When someone gets a stomach ache, does it make sense to say they "deserve" a stomach ache? If we talk like that, we're assuming a human being making a judgment about whether or not that person "deserves" this or not -- maybe they ate an entire cake and we feel they "deserve" what they get, etc. But those are human value judgments; moral judgments; judgments that involve notions of "good" and "bad," and particularly of justice, in the sense of what is deemed fair or unfair. When it comes to facts of the world, it's not always useful to talk in terms like these. The tree got struck by lightning -- did the tree deserve it? I throw a rock into a pond -- does the water deserve to be disturbed? No one can step outside of life, so how you judge what's deserved or undeserved, fair or unfair, is dependent on your own perspective. That's essentially a truism.

So see if you agree with this: it is unjust for an innocent to suffer. This is just a different way of saying what you're saying above, in my view -- can we agree on that?

Lastly, "innocent" is a bit strange. Innocent of what, and who decides innocence?

With semantics out of the way, let me rephrase your premises a bit:

(1) "harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved" = It is unjust for an innocent to suffer.

(2) "life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here" = Suffering is an inescapable part of life.

That's all you've said so far. I'm not assuming the conclusion yet, I'm not attributing anything to pessimism. To be crystal clear: what I'm challenging is premise (1).

OK?

Again this is worth repeating— and was ignored:

The question is whether life is worth living even though there is suffering. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly fine to have kids if one chooses to. If the answer is no, then the human species should become extinct -- yes? Which I'm not saying is illogical -- it's logical if you accept the premise, as the Buddhists do, that life is suffering and suffering should be eliminated. — Xtrix

Imagine you order a pizza and pay upfront.

The pizza that is delivered has a shit on it. You phone up the restaurant to complain that what they delivered is not what you ordered, that it has a shit on it and that you did not order the shit.

The restaurant says "but is it not a lovely pizza? Have you tried part that doesn't have shit on it? It's delicious"

Would you think that's a good response - have they understood your point? — Bartricks

In that specific case, no. I don't think it's a great analogy though. Why? Because we're talking about something much bigger -- we're talking about life. So what if the pizza were the size of the world? Would the fact that there was shit on it negate all of that pizza?

Your analogy is a good one in terms of proportion. By that I mean it would hold true for life if, say, we knew 95% of it would be agonizing pain. In that case, sure -- no person deserves that. That's a serious question which often arises, in fact. If the baby is known to have a disease where there is prolonged suffering which will inevitably end in death, parents have to make the decision about whether to terminate (out of compassion). In this case, it would be like taking the opposite stance to my thought experiment about seeing the future.

But life isn't all shit. It's not all pizza, either.

Well I don't fault my parents for having me, either. I guess that's more relevant. In fact I owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing me into this wonderful world, even though the price of admission is also suffering and death.
— Xtrix

That's question begging. You don't owe them a thing. They owe you. They owe you a happy harm free life - which is something they can't even come close to providing. — Bartricks

Which no one can provide.

But in any case, that's your assertion. If you feel your parents owed you something -- specifically, a life free of any harm whatsoever, that's your business. But it's just that -- an assertion.

I could just as easily assert that what they "owed" me was life -- a ticket to this world.

But out of curiosity, do you fault your parents for bringing you into the world? But your argument, you should.
— Xtrix

Of course. If I didn't, I would be a hypocrite, but my argument would be no less sound for that. — Bartricks

Why do you fault them? I thought you just said you weren't a pessimist and assumed -- just as I do -- that there were all these joys. So if life is good, as I think, then it's a good thing they brought you into the world -- and you should be grateful to them, not faulting them.

But of course you fault them because you don't think life is good. You think life isn't good. And you think life isn't good because there's suffering -- even the slightest bit of suffering.

I just don't interpret life that way. Perhaps it's more dispositional.

But rather than assume, I'll just ask: Do you believe life is, on the whole, a good?

Misses the point: antinatalism is a normative view: a view about what we 'ought' to do. So, by just insisting that it's 'just a matter of choice' you once more beg the question. — Bartricks

It's not begging the question. I'm not assuming my conclusion in what I said. I'm simply saying that there is no universal normative claim that can be made. Why? Because it ultimately rests on whether you believe life is good and worth living -- or not. Is the glass half empty or full? If you think empty -- for whatever psychological reasons -- then you most certainly should not have kids.

If you're trying to convince others that they should not have kids, then you need a better normative argument than simply "Life is bad because there's pain." So far you've not done so. You've tried to invoke logic, but a major premise is an assertion based on, again, your general attitude and interpretation of the world and what you think the world "owes" you and what life "should" be (namely, free of harm). But since that world is impossible, life is therefore ultimately an evil -- and we should put an end to having kids and perpetuating the meaningless, harmful cycle.

What I'm saying is that some kind of "logic" doesn't dictate this,
— Xtrix

Yes it does. I am showing that it does. There are umpteen good arguments for antinatalism, of which the one in the OP is an example. That's why it's a respectable philosophical position that has an increasingly number of defenders. — Bartricks

But you really haven't shown that. If you had, I would be in agreement. You can assume I'm just an idiot who can't follow you -- fine. But otherwise, you need to argue better. I think it's a fool's mission though, because you've already revealed a premise as entirely dependent on a fundamental judgment of life. And there's nothing I can do about a fundamental judgment of life.

So far you have said nothing to suggest any premise in my argument is false. You are pointing to other considerations, but not saying anything to challenge any of my argument's premises. — Bartricks

You keep repeating this, so I'll keep repeating myself as well: I'm challenging the second premise. This premise: that babies deserve a life free of harm.

That's the premise I'm challenging.

Why do they deserve that which is impossible?
— Xtrix

Are you saying that one can't deserve the impossible? — Bartricks

No, I'm saying: Why do they deserve the impossible? Viz: Why are you claiming that they "deserve" something which is impossible?

So essentially the argument rests on this perspective: because there is suffering, life is bad.
— Xtrix

No. — Bartricks

Yes, indeed. As I've continued to show.

There is no pessimistic premise in my argument. — Bartricks

There is. It's the premise I mentioned above. The premise I'm challenging.

They say "Why so pessimistic? Most of the pizza does not have poo on it and those bits - the majority - are delicious!"

That'd be crazy, yes? They've missed your point. — Bartricks

Yes, they've missed your point. And?

Your point is that you deserved to be given a pizza that had no poo on it whatever and was entirely delicious. — Bartricks

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. Maybe I did deserve it from someone's point of view -- who cares?

The point is that it's not what I ordered.

So relate that to life. What are you arguing with this analogy? You want to deny that you're arguing that "Life is bad because there's suffering." Yet this analogy is saying "This is not what I ordered -- doesn't matter if the rest of it is good, I didn't order the bad." Which, again, just assumes your premise of "there should be zero suffering." There should be no harm, there should be no poo -- because we didn't order/consent to either.

But what if the person said, "Yeah, I'll take the pizza with shit on it. Better than the alternative -- which is starving to death." Yes, that may not be what you choose -- fair enough. But that's not a moral argument -- whether about having kids or eating the pizza.

I don't consider life to be a pizza with shit on it.

You are mischaracterizing my view as "pizza with poo on it totally bad" and just ignoring that my point is that if one has ordered a poo-free cheese pizza and one is given a cheese pizza with poo on it, then you have not received what you deserved. — Bartricks

Yes, you have no received what you ordered.

That has nothing to do with life. Why? Because you're not born saying "I'm ordering one life with NO harm whatsoever please," as you would with pizza. The shit is part of life. It would be like saying "I'll have one pizza with no dough please." That's part of the pizza. Either you want a pizza -- which includes dough (not shit), or you don't want a pizza. Either you want life (which includes pain/death), or you don't.

You're misusing the word incoherent. — Bartricks

No, it's completely accurate: incomprehensible.

I am not claiming that a happy harm free life is possible. I don't think it is. That's why one ought not to procreate!! — Bartricks

Exactly. Which is pessimism.

One should not procreate because there is harm.

Thus, harm renders life bad -- or, to put another way, UNWORTHY OF CREATING. In other words, the human species should die out -- which is the outcome of antinatalism. Life is a mistake, humans are a mistake.

You keep wanting to claim it's not pessimism, but that's exactly what it is. Which is fine -- but at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind "logic" and "premises" and throw around Rhetoric 101 terms like "begging the question" and "strawman," as if this entire argument doesn't rest on anything other than your own views on what is "deserved" in life and what a "good" or "worthy" life would be (namely, impossible -- i.e., harm-free).

Now, you're reasoning "Oh, well as it is impossible for me to give anyone a pizza without poo on it, that's what I'll give people, even if they order cheese pizzas and not cheese and poo pizzas" — Bartricks

No. First, one doesn't "order" anything in life. If you feel, as an adult making a choice about whether to have kids, that bringing a life into the world where harm is inevitable is enough of a reason not to bring a life into the world, then that's your own business.

Again, the proper analogy is: expecting a pizza which is impossible. Not one without "poo," but one without dough. But dough is what makes it a pizza. So either you want a pizza (which means dough), or you don't.

To be clear: your pizza analogy fails because suffering is part of life. Poo is not part of pizza.

Now, what DEGREE of suffering? Again, that's a serious question -- and one where perhaps your analogy would be suitable. In abnormal circumstances, where there is excessive pain and suffering, the question about whether to bring a life into the world becomes much more relevant.

And when I phone up and say "why the bloody hell does my pizza have a poo on it!!" you don't reply "but it's mainly cheese and only a bit of poo - stop being so pessimistic, the non-poo bits are lovely" — Bartricks

You're not pessimistic because you dislike suffering. You're pessimistic because you allow suffering to negate life.

Antinatalism, as a normative stance, argues that human beings should not have kids. That's nothing more than negating -- literally negating -- life, and exterminating the species. And somehow that's not pessimism?

If you think that because there's even the slightest pain involved in being alive, that this fact negates everything else -- which is what you're arguing, really -- then that is indeed pessimism.
— Xtrix

That's NOT pessimism. — Bartricks

Yes, it is.

If suffering negates life, that is pessimism. It is saying that life is (despite some "good things," as you claim) bad -- and thus, unworthy of continuing -- and it is bad because suffering exists. This is what you're advocating.

Again, everything I am saying is entirely consistent with whatever rosy outlook you have. — Bartricks

Not a rosy outlook -- just not one that claims because any kind of suffering exists whatsoever, that life is ultimately bad, negated, and not worthy of continuing.

rather than to the fact that solid arguments lead to it. — Bartricks

I'm an antinatalist because it's where the arguments lead. — Bartricks

The arguments aren't solid or compelling in the least. It rests solely on the premise "one deserves a life with no harm." There's no evidence supporting this -- it's simply asserted. Fine. Leave pessimism out of it, if you wish. That premise is, at best, unconvincing.

If it's convincing to you, again -- don't have kids. Be well. I won't even speculate on the psychological underpinnings of it. It's just entirely unconvincing to me. To say the argument is "solid" and that's what leads you to the conclusion -- despite "not being a pessimist"...well, if you say so!

They deserve much, much more than this. That's part of the point. They deserve no harm whatsoever. Not some harm and some benefit. No harm. Ziltch. Nada. No harm. — Bartricks

Says you. But think about it for a minute. NO harm? What does that mean? Is that possible?

No. So, again, in essence you're saying: there should be no kids because life contains suffering.

I think that's a very weak argument -- not wrong, really, but very strange to me. You mean to tell me that if you could see in the future and your kid, say, created a utopia on earth -- or discovered the cure to diseases, or revolutionized philosophy or science or music...but stubbed his toe a few times...that you would say "Sorry, he deserved no pain whatsoever; zero, zilch; thus, I'm not having this kid." Obviously we cannot see into the future...but for the sake of argument, would that actually be your conclusion?

My claim is not at all pessimistic. Assume I think life here is everybit as wonderful as you do. — Bartricks

OK.

My claim is that innocent persons deserve none - none - of the harms it contains and much much more of the happiness that it contains. — Bartricks

Yes, I understand. You've said that multiple times. What I'm saying is that this is completely incoherent. Why? Because you cannot have "none" of the harms without negating life completely. If that's truly your criterion for the morality of having a child, then there should be no kids -- ever. So the statement "much much more of the happiness that it contains" is moot, even if we agreed about it. Life -- whether happy or not -- cannot exist without suffering.

That's not remotely pessimistic. My claims are about the morality of procreation. Whatever joys you think life here contains, assume I think it contains them as well. That way you won't mistake me for a pessimist. — Bartricks

Fine -- but you've already negated life. You assume all the joys exist, but you will not pass those joys on to another life because suffering also exists. How is that anything other than saying "Suffering refutes life"? And how is that anything but pessimism? That's Schopenhauer's stance, as you know -- and many Buddhists.

I don't use "pessimism" pejoratively, by the way. It's simply a worldview.

Yes, an innocent person is born deserving no harm at all and positively deserving a happy life. So, they are born deserving a harm-free happy life. — Bartricks

Well what of happy lives that are NOT harm-free (like, I would argue, my own)?

In other words, what if an innocent person -- a baby -- deserves to live a happy life? Sure, I agree with that. But happiness doesn't simply mean "zero pain whatsoever," as you know.

So I would separate the two. There's harm-free, which is impossible, and there's "happy" (and here I take happiness in the Aristotelian sense), which is possible (even if rare).

So I take your "positively deserving a happy life" seriously. I think that's true, sure. But you cannot possibly have a happy life without suffering...thus, a "harm-free happy life" is an oxymoron. As if "harm-free life" in general, incidentally.

Thus, any happiness - any benefit - that accrues to them is default deserved, just as any harm is default undeserved. — Bartricks

Is a stomach ache "deserved" or "undeserved"? Is being in love "deserved" or not?

Those terms really don't apply, in my view. But if we are talking that way, then it's a personal choice. Does my (potential) child "deserve" to be born or not? That's the question -- and the answer depends on what you think of life. If you think life is, on the whole, a good -- then yes, have kids. If you think it isn't, then don't.

If you think that because there's even the slightest pain involved in being alive, that this fact negates everything else -- which is what you're arguing, really -- then that is indeed pessimism.

Deciding to have kids rests on many factors and is very personal. But the one you offer about "undeserving harm" is rather unconvincing. If it convinces you, great. But you're in a philosophy forum, and putting forth an argument for "anti-natalism," which has implications not just for you but for others. If a major premise of yours rests solely on your personal interpretation of life, then you shouldn't be altogether shocked if many aren't persuaded.

Because you need to argue that something I've said above is false, not just straw man me by insisting that I'm some sort of pessimist. It's not a pessimistic argument at all. You do realize it goes through even if our lives here contain much more happiness than pain? Yes? — Bartricks

I'm not arguing it's false. It's a personal choice. Just like saying "There is suffering, so life is refuted" is a choice. It's a perspective. Is it "wrong"? No, I just don't hold it myself. I don't agree -- I don't see it that way.

So yes, it does come down to perspective. It's not a matter of logic. The premise you mention about "deserving" a harm-free life is just another way of expressing the perspective mentioned. Is it true? Sure, if you see only suffering. But I ask about joy and you are silent.