I actually think one should have practical know-how, and my reasoning is that I think it poses a problem in the realm of public perception. For example, let's say Joe is a professor of philosophy but he knows absolutely jack sh*it about how the pipes under his house get his water or something like that. He just hands money to a repairman when things go awry and away he goes back to working on his new book. Joe's neighbours might associate him with the stereotype of the academic who can write theory all day but doesn't know anything remotely practical. Joe is afraid to get his hands dirty, and he's just a sissy liberal arts major or what have you. This is a little different, but I think another example is Western self-help commodifications of Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, or whatever. All talk that was carefully researched by someone who knows what they're doing, but no show on how to actually do anything. Praxis and experience greatly increase a person's credibility, because I can know Kant from A-Z but where does that really get me?

correction: looks like Pearce himself is active on here. I think his AMA is on going

Yeah exactly, we just don't know. I do know there has been talk of inviting transhumanist David Pearce here. He is a non academic philosopher, but he's written quite a bit on negative utilitarianism (basically hedonic based antinatalism) and a lot of what he says has to do with nature and how ugly it is. There's a lot of sciency talk about the neurology of animals, insects, fish, and other creatures, how they perceive suffering, and what this means for negative aggregate ethics. If you asked Pearce, it seems he really does buy into the whole "it would be great if we bulldozed all of nature instantly" but since that's not happening, he advocates that technology should eliminate pain in nature entirely. If you ask me, wild animal suffering never concerned me that much, and I think Pearce sounds like he's caught up in too much wacky sci-fi optimism, but if you're interested in this it's worth checking out

from the arguments I’ve seen, animals only “matter” in the equation if your antinatalism is purely based on a hedonic output (suffering outweighs pleasure) But not all antinatalists accspt this line of ethics. Animals suffer yes, but their suffering is a lot different than human suffering. The pessimist can point out that animals aren’t self reflective, they don’t need to constantly strive, and many animals like cows or gorillas can sit around for long hours simply “not doing” when most humans can’t (maybe monks can but that takes the tons training). The question remains whether these things are truly bad for humans, but it allows the antinatalist to steer clear of “annihilate all nature” that some people accept.

:up: enjoyed your response

sorry I didn’t mean blame as in people who have kids deserve punishment, but that people who have kids are morally responsible.

This is kind of a random question, but I like your responses so I’m interested in seeing what’d you have say. What if there came a time where human beings all became sterile, but babies started popping into the world out of thin air-no procreation required and no parents who made a conscious choice to put another human here. What do you think humans would do in such a predicament? Now there’s nobody to blame if my life turns out to suck. I’ve always wondered how the pessimistic anitnatalist would react to such a thing

just wanted to say your posts in the “all things wrong with antinatalism” thread convinced me.

Now, If you had 100% certainty that your future kid would cure cancer, having them wouldn’t exactly be self centered.

if for whatever reason we DID need to force the Lifeguard to teach life guarding lessons (there’s a shortage) would it then be okay? Personally I think it would be, if let’s say the government estimates that 100000 children will drown in a year

“Let's say you did the calculus and indeed the greatest number of people would be saved if he did this. There is something wrong with this. But what?”

but isn’t this just another Omelas situation but a little different? In some fantastical situation for the sake of an argument, if someone was forced to run a business forever and doing so saved 5 million people from the Agony Box, I personally feel like forcing them was permissible. Not doing so would mean 5 million people are in constant pain and suffering. If to you it’s still wrong then I respect your moral intuitions but It just doesn’t seem like a safe alternative is possible to me. Your moral system and Khaled’s system lead to 2 giant bullets I’ll have to bite, and the aggregate amount seems more appropriate.

To me it’s like taxing the shit out of Jeff Bezos to redistribute the wealth. Bezos, his family, and all of the Amazon higher ups are going to be absolutely miserable they’re forced to lose a fortune everyday but the people need it. The guy forced to run the life saving business might be miserable too, but the alternative (not forcing him) is much worse and seems unfair. To me this highlights the shortcomings of both deontology and consequentialism

I don't think I would, honestly. There's only so much the world can offer before boredom overtakes us. Though I think it would be interesting to have a button I could press to go whenever I want if I did take the pill

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer

Seems like this itself works as a justification for having children

This guy has always been very interesting. I never liked hedonism and I question whether fully eliminating suffering and all forms of discomfort would be a good idea. Nonetheless I’m interested to hear what he’s got to say

I think it’s important to realize that not every normative ethical standard out there defines suffering as inherently bad. Personally I try to reduce suffering when I can but I think “reduce suffering” as an imperative tends to lead into some world exploding scenarios

Deleted

Schopenhauer probably has the best takes on music I've ever read

I am personally skeptical of whether it’s possible to actually be a philosophical pessimist and still retain a happy mood. After I looked up Schopenhauer’s pessimism and read his ideas about the will, I couldn’t function for well over a month as I constantly ruminated over my desire, how I’ll never be satisfied etc even when I was with friends, eating my favourite foods, or generally having what’s supposed to be a good time. This constant ruminating might just be my own fault, but I don’t understand how someone could reach those conclusions and still have a cheery face without it being in your brain all day.

I think this what separates “the world is hell” kind of pessimism where I’ll consider how many children are starving in Africa and how many terrorists are blowing people up, because I can simply shrug it off since it doesn’t personally affect my life. Schopenhauer’s ideas if they’re true are constantly affecting everyone all the time

because some of these sacrifices don’t apply when raising a biological child. Adoption to me doesn’t seem harm free, because when you adopt a child, you’ll probably have to pick the kid you wish to adopt, which means singling out other ones. Creating a person negates this problem, and I don’t think every person is able to make that choice.

While it’s true that more ought to adopt, I don’t think adoption is the catchall solution here. Adoption is an incredibly expensive, tedious, and even exclusionary process that can take years to complete. Adopted kids also come with their own issues, and I don’t think every parent is properly prepared to deal with it. If anything, adopting should be made easier but I don’t blame potential parents for not adopting

yeah I agree there. Hell, reading your posts tends to fill my mind with a sense of dread, and yet I keep coming back to read more of them :lol:

well, you’ve said many times this is abhorrent to you (and it’s abhorrent to me too) but I think one example of a genuinely positive reason to procreate spurs from a hedonistic utilitarian framework. Parents have kids because they want to, and under this frame it’s all good because there’s a positive aggregate that is maximized. In fact, I’d wager a lot of parents use a watered-down version of this justification since most tend to follow their intuitions for applied situations instead of following ethical systems.

I’m not an antinatalist but I honestly think something like this should be implemented. It feels like it should be common sense, at least. Most philosophers aren’t antinatalist either but I’ll bet every professor in ethics recognizes that child rearing is a gigantic responsibility and people ought to do it responsibly. This seems like the best way to do it. If someone says no then they’re not fit to parent

I’ve always thought this was an interesting way of analyzing our moral intuitions. Ultimately morality is a human construction, and yet existence itself is far from moral depending on where you lean. Think of all the animals getting ripped to shreds out in the jungle or even in your own backyard. This is one reason why I’ve accepted an anti-realist position-existence itself is incompatible with the intuitions I grew up with

ok thanks for laying it all out like this it’s more clear what you’re asking, but I’m still a little bit confused. Are you asking why should any mode of production/survival/trade etc be perpetuated or are you asking why should the current one be perpetuated? As I said I’m not a fan of the current political structure, so I’m definitely not going to put any people into this one period.

"So, you believe everything is here merely on an accident? There's no order that keeps things in check, and puts them into the manner and way that they are?"

I actually had a conversation with someone who was "nihilistic" and they argued the exact opposite of this, and how believing we were made by an intelligent designer and not out of what they called blind evolution is delusional and ridiculous.

That's bizarre, it might be a country thing. The book is called "Unbelievable Errors" by Bart Streumer. It's essentially an argument for a radical skepticism of everything we know. I felt it would be appropriate

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198785897.001.0001/oso-9780198785897 This might interest you

For me I always liked my life but I couldn’t really give an answer as to why besides “there’s cool stuff I guess”. When I was younger I got curious and wanted to find a grand justification for living, so I started with a lot of existentialist/philosophy of life stuff like the Stoics, Taoists, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Camus, etc. I never really got a clear answer, but these days the question doesn’t really come about. I’m much more into analytic stuff like meta-ethics these days which I don’t see much of an interest in around here

I believe you can. I have interacted with some people who held an error theory about descriptive properties, but accepted non-cognitivsm about normative statements (what we ought to do)

"Even Marx fetishizes it but says work is a "good" in itself as long as one is doing it as sort of a hobby. But I think any activity is not self-justified "goods" that are just "there" in existence necessarily".

This is sort of what I was getting at. I agree with Marx but it's nice to see a refreshing perspective!

Messy reply incoming, but this is a good question. I have no idea where you lean economically (you don't have to say) but the way I see it is that in an ideal world, nobody should HAVE to work if they really don't want to. You could back on what you said and call this simple freeloading, but I see it more as someone who would rather do the things they enjoy doing. Should anarchists and socialists like me who think the same way as me be child-free? I think so because why make more meat for the neo-liberal grinder?

However, after the "revolution" (though thats a pipe dream let's be realistic here) I'm inclined to disagree and see no issue with work in itself, and I believe that in an ideal world your problem wouldn't be that much of a problem at all. In the modern economy, there is lots of work that "must be done" FOR NO REASON. There's a growing movement nowadays called "anti-work" or simply The Right to Be Lazy. Doing nothing all day if one really wants should not be something we shame, and in a world of billions there's always going to be people who enjoy the labour the smart man thinks is just "grunt work" or "bullshit jobs".

All in all, I have no problem with work, but I do have a problem with people being born to live as a wage slave. I like your pessimistic neo-Schopenhauerian posts even though I don't agree with it all the way, but if what you're really asking me is "society constantly relies on a system of upkeep to sustain itself. Why are we putting humans in this imperfect world!?" then I will concede I simply don't have an answer there since I don't think work itself is wrong.

Just wanted to say you have some really interesting thoughts here and I enjoyed reading them. However, I myself have found questions demanding a justification for human life to be kind of strange. What kind of justification do people want? A god given purpose?

I'm pretty sure the common utilitarian justification is that intuitively it would suck if the world was empty or there's good things without anyone to enjoy them. I do not share this intuition but it makes sense to me

well, according to many Consequentialists this little charade seems to be generating favourable outcomes-whether it’s happy points, preference satisfaction, virtue, etc. You’ve stated many times you don’t buy this theory, but hey it’s one point of view!

To the section question, the answer seems obvious and I think you know it too. Group think, Pollyanna biases, religion, and even an idea of “destiny” or progress: IE “we should colonize space and we need humans for that!” Personally I don’t fully buy you and Schopenhauer’s pessimistic diagnosis of human life, but I can certainly relate to the fact when people don’t want to hear you you’re suddenly insane or mentally ill. Radical ideas not welcome

So-called "existential nihilism" always seemed self refuting to me. Nihilism assumes that nothing matters and everything from morality to meaning is completely pointless and there are no objective claims. Ok? So that means that "nothing matters", being an objective claim, also doesn't matter. It's circular

my thoughts exactly on the book tbh. I treated Ligotti’s novel the same way one would treat a pop philosophy self help book. There’s some good ideas here and there but it’s not a philosophical work. Conspiracy against the Human Race is what I would define as “pop pessimism” insofar that I think the point of the book is that it’s just a compilation of pessimistic ideas Ligotti finds appealing and thinks everyone is too deluded to talk about. There’s some merit to that, given our Pollyanna biases and all, but there’s no real argument presented in it

deleted

The thing I don't really like about this is that Ligotti's pessimism and antinatalism seems to translate into a kind of nihilism-but antinatalist pessimists aren't nihilists. They think suffering matters a lot and we ought to not have children to reduce it. I like Ligotti's writing style but I don't think people should look at this like a philosophical work like some people (not that you have done so) have claimed. A hard determinist moral nihilism doesn't seem to translate into antintalism and I've never found anti realist positions to be depressing

I don’t really understand why this forum continues to have these discussions. I’ve looked back on the other antinatalism threads from years ago and they always devolved into the same arguments from both the antinatalists and the natalists. I think there are more fruitful discussions to be found in academic papers. What fun is there in repeating ourselves

i agree. I feel like every pro-natalist argument I’ve read elsewhere took future people into consideration. I don’t see why people keep re-hashing this argument. If one disregards the concept of consent in procreation that’s fine I guess (depending on what bullets you want to bite) but people are going to be affected. I don’t see why it’s popular here