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

It isn't "justified". It is, however, like most complex dynamic systems self-justifying/reproducing.

Well, there's the old time "Be fruitful and multiply" rationalization (ideology) ...

Because mass cognitive dissonance would ensue ... and lambs would lay down with lions!

Another point of view? Sure. Won't be popular, though, never has been whenever and wherever its been practiced and promoted. We're ecologically-imbedded embodied animals with millions of years of homeostatic and procreative hardwiring that a few millennia of antinatal ratiocination cannot undo or override in the vast majority of homo sapiens.

Why are you so evangelical about this, schop1? Why isn't it enough for you that you refuse – for moral reasons or not – to breed? Like a "pro-lifer" on a jihad to stop others from having abortions because it's not enough for them not to have abortions themselves ...

Why are you so evangelical about this, schop1? Why isn't enough that you refuse – for moral reasons or not – to breed? — 180 Proof

I'll answer this first.. specifically on the two parts of the package mentioned in this thread..

Not breeding does not thereby negate being born. What does one do once born and is contrarian to the arrangement? Of course there is suicide. But besides this, I want to engage and evaluate the thought-process (often never looked at critically for reasons you have laid out well). Clearly other people are involved in this decision, and it is part of their value system, even if they are just following the tropes of the group-think. I want to understand the origins of this group-think, deconstruct it, show it bare for what it is, and expose the harmful political assumptions of perpetuating this package.

It isn't "justified". It is, however, like most complex dynamic systems self-justifying/reproducing. — 180 Proof

Can you explain this process in more detail?

Well, there's the old time "Be fruitful and multiply" rationalization (ideology) ... — 180 Proof

Granted, that somehow gets in the ideology.

Because mass cognitive dissonance would ensue ... and lambs would lay down with lions! — 180 Proof

Can you explain this one?

Another point of view? Sure. Won't be popular, though, never has been whenever and wherever its been practiced and promoted. We're ecologically-embedded embodied animals with millions of years of homeostatic and procreative hardwiring that a few millennia of antinatal ratiocination cannot undo or override in the vast majority of homo sapiens. — 180 Proof

But unlike eliminating waste or eating, procreation is never such an immediate need, and so the motivations are much more complex and culturally based.

I want to understand the origins of this group-think, deconstruct it, show it bare for what it is, and expose the harmful political assumptions of perpetuating this package. — schopenhauer1

And then what? You think the world will change?

Have you seen The Truman Show?

Can't there be another point of view? — schopenhauer1

I wish it could be another point of view but in this era no... Remember that this world literally gave up on social basics as you said: ethics, equality, moral, etc... pursuing one goal: make the most ton of money you can doesn’t matter the rest.
You said we can think about it and change it through rationalism/ improving our criteria. Nevertheless, this depends a lot where you come from. Imagine you were born in El Salvador or Eritrea. What chances do you have to change the circumstances? I guess zero. Because your environment makes it really hard (violence, drugs, injustices, etc...) so... the first and second packages are from rich countries.
If it can be another point of view we have to the travel the “developed countries” and see what happens... but they are wasting money in social networks and fancy cars.

But unlike eliminating waste or eating, procreation is never such an immediate need, and so the motivations are much more complex and culturally based. — schopenhauer1

Procreation (the whole rigamarole of conception, pregnancy, and birth, feeding, diaper changes, etc.) isn't an immediate need. For women it's kind of a pain. But sex is an immediate need. Heterosexual sex, however much aimed at short-term gratification, leads to conception with enough frequency to achieve a growing population.

Is a growing population a problem? Until quite recently, it was not. In 1700 there were about .6B people. In 1800 the world population was about 1B. A century later it was 1.6B. Today it is 7.8B. Something (technology? better public health? more food? strong economy?) enabled population to more than double twice in 100 years. Culture hasn't kept up. Lots of people do not see a problem in 10 billion people converging with global warming. More fools they.

We are stuck with a large population, barring savage and draconian measures; a horrific epidemic (much worse than anything we have seen so far); or, my guess, agricultural collapse. No individual solutions will help, given the immensely unlikely possibility that 8 billion people will voluntarily refrain from reproductive sex.

Why does this package seem justified to perpetuate onto more people born into the world? — schopenhauer1

Well, there is this "way of the world", the way things work. The higher-order self-questioning that leads to voluntary non-reproduction isn't very common among the world's people. There's nothing wrong with everybody; they are just doing what people do -- getting through their day. That is the world's way, from microbes on up.

Your thinking is explicitly anti-natal, but there are many millions of people who have opted for less than self-replacement levels of reproduction. Millions of people so opting is far short of enough to make a difference in world population. Until very recently, there was no good reason to promulgate antinatalism: the death rate was too high.

You will probably argue that high rates of grim death were actually an excellent reason to promote antinatalism. Collective thinking, habits, patterns, and so forth -- culture -- was no where close to finding your reasoning palatable (like in the medieval or Roman period when perhaps 25% to 33% of the area population died off from epidemics).

And then what? You think the world will change? — baker

That is a really good question. At least get this contrarian idea to the norm out there.

Have you seen The Truman Show? — baker

Yes, but what is the tie in?

I wish it could be another point of view but in this era no... Remember that this world literally gave up on social basics as you said: ethics, equality, moral, etc... pursuing one goal: make the most ton of money you can doesn’t matter the rest.
You said we can think about it and change it through rationalism/ improving our criteria. Nevertheless, this depends a lot where you come from. Imagine you were born in El Salvador or Eritrea. What chances do you have to change the circumstances? I guess zero. Because your environment makes it really hard (violence, drugs, injustices, etc...) so... the first and second packages are from rich countries.
If it can be another point of view we have to the travel the “developed countries” and see what happens... but they are wasting money in social networks and fancy cars. — javi2541997

So my premises are on why we create ANY socio-economic-cultural arrangements (which means this is not dependent on contingent cultural circumstances.. it can be first world or third world or hunter-gatherer arrangements). Why do we perpetuate more people to endure having to deal with

1.)Social structures of economic, political, cultural institutions that de facto need to be entered into in order to survive, find comfort, and fill time with entertainment.

ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that our species can (from normal development and socialization):

2.) Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them.

SO rather the question is, why perpetuate any of this forced dilemma of survival, comfort-seeking, etc.? Is it not a political act to decide that more people need to live life and endure this? Are we not animals that have the double-duty of being able to reflect upon our situation and decide we don't like it BUT THEN STILL HAVE TO DO IT KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES OTHERWISE ARE DE FACTO DEATH OR MOER MISERY?

Procreation (the whole rigamarole of conception, pregnancy, and birth, feeding, diaper changes, etc.) isn't an immediate need. For women it's kind of a pain. But sex is an immediate need. Heterosexual sex, however much aimed at short-term gratification, leads to conception with enough frequency to achieve a growing population. — Bitter Crank

But we all know that this is not cut-and-dry. Certainly one if one really wanted to, can refrain from sex for the rest of their life. It isn't as enjoyable as far as pleasure, but it is possible. However, with contraception that isn't necessary.. Roller coasters are also fun for many people.. but we certainly wouldn't want to ride one that hasn't been fully tested and have proper safety precautions. Obviously one can take precautions for sex as well, but you know that. Of course, unlike roller coasters, your personal sex life is not scrutinized for safety precautions by a commission of engineers :lol:. That might be the next step :D.

Is a growing population a problem? Until quite recently, it was not. In 1700 there were about .6B people. In 1800 the world population was about 1B. A century later it was 1.6B. Today it is 7.8B. Something (technology? better public health? more food? strong economy?) enabled population to more than double twice in 100 years. Culture hasn't kept up. Lots of people do not see a problem in 10 billion people converging with global warming. More fools they.

We are stuck with a large population, barring savage and draconian measures; a horrific epidemic (much worse than anything we have seen so far); or, my guess, agricultural collapse. No individual solutions will help, given the immensely unlikely possibility that 8 billion people will voluntarily refrain from reproductive sex. — Bitter Crank

I wonder if the epidemic is giving people pause to how much they want to expose their child to contingent harms of the world. At the least, the disruption in certain ways of life may have people more introspective as to what the hell they are even doing day in and day out and what for anyways.. If people aren't introspecting.. they should. They have the capabilities to self-reflect on an existential level, why wouldn't they?

Well, there is this "way of the world", the way things work. The higher-order self-questioning that leads to voluntary non-reproduction isn't very common among the world's people. There's nothing wrong with everybody; they are just doing what people do -- getting through their day. That is the world's way, from microbes on up. — Bitter Crank

But my point is we are not similar in one way to microbes and other animals- we can self-reflect on any given task, condition, state of affairs we are in AND we can aggregate and self-reflect on "EXISTENCE" as a whole. Why would we not question this practice of simply continuing this arrangement of (and I know I repeat..)

1) Social structures of economic, political, cultural institutions that de facto need to be entered into in order to survive, find comfort, and fill time with entertainment.

In light of the fact that we can...

2) Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them.

You will probably argue that high rates of grim death were actually an excellent reason to promote antinatalism. Collective thinking, habits, patterns, and so forth -- culture -- was no where close to finding your reasoning palatable (like in the medieval or Roman period when perhaps 25% to 33% of the area population died off from epidemics). — Bitter Crank

I should have read this first.. haha. Why wouldn't it be found palatable? What is this tendency to not find it palatable? Let me rephrase this.. If procreating more life is affecting other people, isn't this decision a political one that perpetuating cultural institutions like working to survive, and finding ways to get more comfortable and entertainment in your enviornment (what humans "do") is necessary and needed? There is are preferences here that are being willed into existence for human existence to do the whole socio-economic-cultural thing. That THIS arrangement is good. We should like it.

So my premises are on why we create ANY socio-economic-cultural arrangements — schopenhauer1

Because those who didn't create them died out. And the ones that are left were the ones that felt the need to create such arrangements. So their children will also probably feel the same need due to either genetics or culture or both (probably both).

If you're asking for why, that's why. If you're asking for justification: That would require the belief that the project is worth continuing somehow. Or the belief that not continuing the project is somehow harmful. Among a slew of other justifications(orders from God and such)

Because those who didn't create them died out. And the ones that are left were the ones that felt the need to create such arrangements. So their children will also probably feel the same need due to either genetics or culture or both (probably both). — khaled

Certainly, when we live this is necessary for our species relying on cultural learning rather than inborn habits. However, we can self-reflect and say something like, "As I am doing this task to survive in this socio-economic circumstance, I am evaluating that I do not like this.." So one can always evaluate and not just blindly and unself-reflectively "do". So if we can self-reflect, we can decide, "Wait, if I do not like doing this, why would I want this to be a way of life for other people?". What is the need to perpetuate the way of life of needing to survive, etc? As you said:

If you're asking for why, that's why. If you're asking for justification: That would require the belief that the project is worth continuing somehow. Or the belief that not continuing the project is somehow harmful. — khaled

It's more like if we can evaluate any part of it or all of it as generally negative, why would we perpetuate it? And if we did, my real question is then, isn't this a political choice we are willing to be enacted into the world? That this way of life needs (somehow) to take place? And if this is a political choice, what is wrong with the contrarian view of this? Why is one praised be default?

"Wait, if I do not like doing this, why would I want this to be a way of life for other people?" — schopenhauer1

Well first off, most people like doing this. And second: For these reasons:

the belief that the project is worth continuing somehow. Or the belief that not continuing the project is somehow harmful. Among a slew of other justifications(orders from God and such) — khaled

That this way of life needs (somehow) to take place? — schopenhauer1

That's justification #1. There are plenty of others that people use.

And if this is a political choice, what is wrong with the contrarian view of this? — schopenhauer1

Objectively? Nothing.

Why is one praised be default? — schopenhauer1

Because it is intuitive and the majority believe it.

Because it is intuitive and the majority believe it. — khaled

Not sure about that. There is a lot to unpack there. Because I like doing something doesn't mean that all of "humanity" should be doing it throughout all time.

And my point is that unlike simple habits that are never followed to the contrary or believed otherwise, we can believe a variety of things. Ad populum doesn't mean anything here to me as justification just that might makes right. Again, that is just political then.

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

Once upon a youth I'd started writing a 'speculative novel' which I'd sort of styled as a response to, or alternative vision of, PD James' Children of Men. The premise, as best as I can recall, went something like this:

As an unforeseen consequence of a (universal) cancer vaccine that induced immunity through the germline without apparent need for a booster – some gonzo madscience genemodding nanotech I'd posited back then (couple of decades before CRISPR) – after a remarkably successful global vaccination campaign in the mid-21st century, the human species became completely cancer-free AND completely sterile within a generation or two ...

... and a fraction of those in the immunized generation who had advanced cancers when they received the vaccine survived with their cancers as well as their aging processes "in remission" effectively became immortal (until their cancers randomly returned eventually killing them) ...

... most of these immortals were solitary or came together in small groups mostly hidden from the sterilized and despairing masses of soon to be extinct humanity, some seeking a "cure" for this genetic sterility, some seeking a way to predict and prevent or survive the recurring immortal-killing tumors (NB: living in micrograv with higher than earth-normal background rads was "the answer" but ...), some leading or just joining mass-suicide or decadent dionysian cults or Mad Max-like roving gangs among the decaying, ravaged cities of the collapsing late 21st global civilization, and some were seeking some form of "tech-singularity" ... — All Will Be Forgotten_an unwritten epic mess!

But that's it, the plot/s escape/s me now. 'The story' – a cautionary tale about one-size-fits-all "cure all" that, in a chaotic universe, even when the plan succeeds very likely breeds unintended, unforeseen, consequences further down stream – got way too grand and deep for my (less-than-monomaniacal) attention-span at the time and so I went back to mostly very short (not quite "micro") fictions where I'm apparently still (permanently?) stuck.

Anyway, my point bringing up this "aborted novel" is, I guess, to point out that speculation about how to, for whatever reason, deliberately engineer human extinction will set off global conflagration of violent suffering once the panic sets-in of mass recognition from the inescapable loss of personal-generational futures, of the use (and abuse) of histories, of the consolations of soteriological faiths, of the relevance of scientific knowledge and discovery, etc. PD James et al have had it right: when looking hard enough at 'antinatalism' as an existential prospect, the very structure of human rationality, not merely our species biology, for better and worse, is an "immortality project" (E. Becker) manifest through natal hope. We are a tragic species either way – antinatality' solves nothing – which, my friends, is genuinely pessimistic.

Anyway, my point bringing up this "aborted novel" is, I guess, to point out that speculation about how to, for whatever reason, deliberately engineer human extinction will set off global conflagration of violent suffering one the panic sets-in of mass recognition of the inescapable loss of personal-generational futures, of the use (and abuse) of histories, of the consolations of soteriological faiths, of the relevance of scientific knowledge and discovery, etc. PD James et al have had it right: when looking hard enough at 'antinatalism' as an existential prospect, the very structure of human rationality, not merely our species biology, for better and worse, is an "immortality project" (Becker) manifest through natal hope. We are a tragic species either way – antinatality' solves nothing – which, my friends, is genuinely pessimistic. — 180 Proof

That is grim and pessimistic. It's ironic that antinatalism not working is pessimistic :D. But what you seem to describe is a sort of forced antinatalism. Rather, I see it as a contrarian political movement to the pro (whatever we have now movement). My question to you then is why do the people who want to perpetuate this "way of life" get to make the rules and the contrarians are the ones to go fuck off and commit suicide if they don't like it? Might makes right, right? Why is the default that getting to perpetuate the political-economic-cultural (what we do now) on yet more people is somehow "good" for them and for the universe? Why is this just default? Antinatalists getting their way means passively NOT forcing a way of life on anything. That is not true with the majority opinion as it is now.

But we all know that this is not cut-and-dry. Certainly one if one really wanted to, can refrain from sex for the rest of their life. It isn't as enjoyable as far as pleasure, but it is possible. — schopenhauer1

Of course it is "possible"; some people actually do remain celibate for all or much of their lives, some even without being monks, nuns, or priests. For most celibates, no-sex is a sacrifice (else it would have no value). For a few people, never having sex is a non-issue.

Roller coasters are also fun for many people — schopenhauer1

When it comes to roller coasters, I'm a celibate. Once was enough.

introspecting... they should. They have the capabilities to self-reflect on an existential level, why wouldn't they? — schopenhauer1

Come on, Schop; introspecting might be hard, or they did look into their inner beings, and found that there wasn't much there (he said, sarcastically).

... we can self-reflect on any given task, condition, state of affairs we are in AND we can aggregate and self-reflect on "EXISTENCE" as a whole. Why would we not question this practice of simply continuing this arrangement of (and I know I repeat..) — schopenhauer1

Two reasons: 1, the pain of continuing along as we have been is less than the possible pain of deviating from the path. 2. Analysis Paralysis. It's real: Examine a problem from enough different angles and one often finds there is no superior arrangement towards which one should move.

Change is not always successful, short, medium, or long run. Look where the great ideas of the Industrial Revolution have brought us. It all seemed like a great idea at the time. A couple of centuries later we discovered that we have been digging our own global grave.

We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them. — schopenhauer1

Yes, we can "evaluate what we are doing..." and can conclude that we do not like doing these things. That does not mean that we can then change without lifting up the great weight of the social overburden. There are good reasons why people don't behave the way we think they should.

There are preferences here that are being willed into existence for human existence to do the whole socio-economic-cultural thing. That THIS arrangement is good. We should like it. — schopenhauer1

I'll say here that these preferences are, in fact NOT willed. I do not believe we can WILL a liking or a preference into existence. If you do not like chocolate (some people don't) can you just decide that it is delicious and then enjoy it? No. Can a heterosexual will himself to find other men sexually attractive and then prefer to have sex with them? No. We can learn new tastes. People have to learn to like cigarettes. Having gotten addicted, they have to learn to like not smoking. Is the decision to smoke the same thing as willing to like cigarettes? No. The decision to smoke is willing to put up with a foul taste until one learns to like it. (Same thing with coffee, horseradish, fish sauce, etc.).

It is indisputable that we are a social species. We have inborn traits that PROPEL us into social behavior from kinderhood on up to ancient age. We don't will ourselves to be social -- we just are. (As Winston Churchill said, "It doesn't take all kinds of people to make a world, there just are.")

There is, as it happens, plenty of room for anti-natalists in this world. All of my best friends have avoided having children (easy for gay men to do). But a few of my heterosexual friends have also not wanted to bring children into this world, as they put it, and they didn't.

Antinatalists need Meet-Up groups; lodges, clubs, fraternities and sororities, associations, foundations. Bowling clubs, marching bands, nudist beaches, roller-coasters, coffee shops, bars, brothels, and bookstores. You all have got to BUILD THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT. Fucking will it into existence, dammit.

Antinatalists need Meet-Up groups; lodges, clubs, fraternities and sororities, associations, foundations. Bowling clubs, marching bands, nudist beaches, roller-coasters, coffee shops, bars, brothels, and bookstores. You all have got to BUILD THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT. Fucking will it into existence, dammit. — Bitter Crank

Damn, that's the best antinatalist call to action I've seen. I completely agree with you. I actually have an idea for the name of these groups as something like "Communities of Catharsis". In these groups one can bitch, moan, and gripe all one wants without any remonstrations to stop complaining and "get with the program". Rather, one unburdens oneself and is allowed to see their fellow humans as fellow-sufferers. Anyways, the bowling clubs and roller-coasters can be a good break in the routine of the regular catharsis meetings :D.

Two reasons: 1, the pain of continuing along as we have been is less than the possible pain of deviating from the path. 2. Analysis Paralysis. It's real: Examine a problem from enough different angles and one often finds there is no superior arrangement towards which one should move. — Bitter Crank

So bringing this back to politics.. If politics is about how to get large groups of people to do things, if we compare the antinatalist to the procreationist sympathizer, the antinatalist does not force anything on anyone, the procreationist sympathizer does. If you like bowling does that mean everyone should like bowling? If you like the whole "project" of the socio-cultural-economic enterprise of human existence, why must then others be pressed into this? One path leads to no enforcement, one does. They are both political statements, but the "yays" lead to pressing others into ones preferences and the "nays" do not do this. But it's not just this unjust outcome of the yays, it is the condemnation of the nays for being contrary to this foisting of (any) way of life (that is to say socio-cultural-economic enterprise of human existence).

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat — schopenhauer1

Well, it is not always a given that changes to undermine the stats quo are going to be good. It is always possible that you will make things worse. And people do not agree about ways forward.

Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them. — schopenhauer1

I would want a much better understanding of whether this claim is true and in what ways. Not everyone can evaluate. Some people lack insight. Some are rewarded as much as they are penalized. Some do not experience harm even if it is present.

If you like bowling does that mean everyone should like bowling? If you like the whole "project" of the socio-cultural-economic enterprise of human existence, why must then others be pressed into this? — schopenhauer1

Commissar: "After the Revolution, there will be enough bowling alleys for all. Nice ones.
Worker: "But Commissar, I don't like bowling."
Commissar: "Comrade, after the Revolution bowling had better be your favorite activity."

You can be exempted from participating in the Fertility Follies. You can march to the beat of whatever drummer you like. Mass societies are willing to tolerate a few people being out of step, as long as it doesn't frighten the horses or annoy those in charge.

My experience has been that IF the horses are frightened, and IF those in charge are annoyed beyond their very modest limits, toleration comes to a screeching halt. Then the deviant discover how punitive mass society can be. No, they probably won't lynch you, jail you (more than a day or two), or bankrupt you with fines. There are plenty of other things Those In Charge cam arrange that one will not like.

Well, it is not always a given that changes to undermine the stats quo are going to be good. It is always possible that you will make things worse. And people do not agree about ways forward. — Tom Storm

What is being made worse by making the political statement that one should not perpetuate the socio-economic-cultural project? Why is this necessary to perpetuate?

I would want a much better understanding of whether this claim is true and in what ways. Not everyone can evaluate. Some people lack insight. Some are rewarded as much as they are penalized. Some do not experience harm even if it is present. — Tom Storm

The fact is, we as humans can evaluate something as negative while we are doing those things. We don't just "exist" but we know we like or don't like something as we are doing it. Why would we want to foist an existence where one not only has to survive, but can evaluate a negative value to this very act of having to survive?

What is being made worse by making the political statement that one should not perpetuate the socio-economic-cultural project? Why is this necessary to perpetuate? — schopenhauer1

I don't understand the sentence.

he fact is, we as humans can evaluate something as negative while we are doing those things. We don't just "exist" but we know we like or don't like something as we are doing it. Why would we want to foist an existence where one not only has to survive, but can evaluate a negative value to this very act of having to survive? — schopenhauer1

The history of psychology and counselling would be at odds with this. The fact is, many, many people don't know they are unhappy and don't know what they want.

I don't understand the sentence. — Tom Storm

So we live in a society.. this big superstructure.. basically we participate in it as a species to survive, get more comfortable, find entertainment. I'll just call it the "human enterprise". Why should we procreate more people and perpetuate this project? More to the point, if people could be born that don't just "live" but can evaluate that they don't like living, why would we put people into that situation where they can evaluate the very thing they need to survive as negative?

Well, the antinatalist foists nothing on no one. Their political statement of "NO" to life, creates no forced dealing with participating and being forced to deal with the social-economic-cultural superstructure.

The procreation sympathizers do indeed foist their view on others, whether they can evaluate it negative or not. Their solution is these people better get with the program that they think is "good" or kill themselves.

These are both political statements about the state of existence. Even more unfair.. The antinatalist is seen as knee-jerk just wrong while the status quo of the majority procreation sympathizers is seen as "obviously" the right or even inevitable political view.

Well, the antinatalist foists nothing on no one. Their political statement of "NO" to life, creates no forced dealing with participating and being forced to deal with the social-economic-cultural superstructure.

The procreation sympathizers do indeed foist their view on others, whether they can evaluate it negative or not. Their solution is these people better get with the program that they think is "good" or kill themselves. — schopenhauer1

Not sure this issue resonates with me vey much. I am simply making the point that your presuppositions here may not be recognizable to everyone.

Not sure this issue resonates with me vey much. I am simply making the point that your presuppositions here may not be recognizable to everyone. — Tom Storm

If I were to say to you that you should not foist your view on others by not procreating other people who will have to take on the human enterprise who may not find this good, what would you say? I used an example of bowling for example. Just because I like bowling, should all of humanity bowl now? Why is the whole human project of having to exist and follow the structures of society be any different?

If I were to say to you that you should not foist your view on others by not procreating other people who will have to take on the human enterprise who may not find this good, what would you say? I used an example of bowling for example. Just because I like bowling, should all of humanity bowl now? Why is the whole human project of having to exist and follow the structures of society be any different? — schopenhauer1

see my previous point.

You asked why it's the default not why it's justified. It's the default because it is intuitive and the majority believe it. And so naturally they will shun those who don’t. As to why it’s justified? I’ve given a couple possibilities.

the antinatalist does not force anything on anyone, the procreationist sympathizer does. — schopenhauer1

You could argue the antinatalist forces people to not procreate. Most schools of thought don’t see procreation as an unjustified imposition. For instance: you would be forcing christians to go directly against their beliefs, as they’re told to have children.

We force things on people all the time if they’re justified. For instance education. So just because a position doesn’t force anything on anyone doesn’t make it better right off the bat. Not having kids go to school is definitely worse than having them go to school.

Or you could argue that the antinatalist also forces things on people. If you choose not to have children, then the people the children would have helped are worse off. You could argue that’s as much an imposition as having the child itself would be.

But unlike eliminating waste or eating, procreation is never such an immediate need, and so the motivations are much more complex and culturally based. — schopenhauer1

Is this so obvious? I agree that sex is mediated, but so are the others. Eat spaghetti with your hands. Take a shit and omit the wipe. Things will not go well for you. Before long, it doesn't even occur to you to eat spaghetti with your hands when you're alone.

So we live in a society.. this big superstructure.. basically we participate in it as a species to survive, get more comfortable, find entertainment. I'll just call it the "human enterprise". Why should we procreate more people and perpetuate this project? More to the point, if people could be born that don't just "live" but can evaluate that they don't like living, why would we put people into that situation where they can evaluate the very thing they need to survive as negative? — schopenhauer1

I think one of the things that 180proof was getting at, which I agree with and will put in my own words, is that people aren't fundamentally rational. We're animals. A certain potential for suicide and voluntary infertility exists in the species so that a few of us can manage it. This has maybe served the community in some roundabout way, brave warriors and shamans perhaps. But mostly we are along for ride, cameras jammed into neckholes with the illusion of 'free will.' FWIW, I sympathize with anti-natalism. If we truly want to be innocent, unstained lambs, then we should not be at all, for we are worse than lions. There's a short story about a sect who takes it upon to destroy all life on earth, not only human life, because they fear than any residue will climb its way back up the evolutionary ladder back to a recognition of its absurd guilt. Actually that was the short story. I haven't fleshed it out. Why bother? [Nothing is funnier than unhappiness and futility.]

Damn, that's the best antinatalist call to action I've seen. I completely agree with you. I actually have an idea for the name of these groups as something like "Communities of Catharsis". In these groups one can bitch, moan, and gripe all one wants without any remonstrations to stop complaining and "get with the program". Rather, one unburdens oneself and is allowed to see their fellow humans as fellow-sufferers. — schopenhauer1

To some degree I think this already exists. Seinfeld loves to talk about how annoying everything is, ad he's ridiculously wealthy. But even without the wealth, to be able to talk with a friend about the horrors of life and make jokes about it is such a relief that life actually becomes pleasant for awhile. Kafka was a comedian. Dostoevsky was a comedian. The best clowns have tears in their eyes.