What possible reason could there be for creating another person?

To make a family is the main reason I opted for children. The benefits include support, relationship, security, and a chance to shape a human life.

Well then why do we need to plant them? They do that themselves too you know. — Isaac

They will if we get the F out of their way. But since we've trashed X% of the worlds lungs, we could replant with the 7 billion parasites currently killing the host. Then, when we've scaled back to a sustainable level, like 35 people per 10k square miles of temperate zone, they'll have some descent shade and air.

To make a family is the main reason I opted for children. The benefits include support, relationship, security, and a chance to shape a human life. — NOS4A2

Is all that worth the pain the child will have to go through in life? The way things are going - prevailing values which put money and power first - the present is a basket case and the future looks even bleaker and that's being optimistic.

What possible reason could there be for creating another person? — Andrew4Handel

I have five children. It is the most difficult task/responsibility you can take-on, and because of that, it gives the most rewards.

Many things in life are intuitive. I believe having children is one of those. If you meet the right woman, you'll know whether you want to start a family with her.

If you over-intellectualize, you'll never want to do anything. Try to see (and live) the good (in all things).

Is all that worth the pain the child will have to go through in life? The way things are going - prevailing values which put money and power first - the present is a basket case and the future looks even bleaker and that's being optimistic.

I think so. One could raise his children in such a way as to deal with those pains, and at the same time combat the proliferation of such values.

I think so. One could raise his children in such a way as to deal with those pains, and at the same time combat the proliferation of such values. — NOS4A2

I suppose you're right. Most of those who make up the human tribe will manage to live relatively happy lives but an unlucky few will have to face the ugly side of nature and suffer for it, miserably so. The one's who manage to avoid extreme misery and expect a similar existence for their children shouldn't be held at ransom just because a handful of us got a raw deal.

There is no reason to require a reason for everything
— unenlightened

I like what you said but what about the Principle Of Sufficient Reason? — TheMadFool

"The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause."

Fucking is the cause of children. Job done.

Other people are absolutely for entertainment, as is pretty much everything else.

I'd like to add another thought, regarding the trajectory of the world making it not worth bringing a kid on board. I think of the shifting environmental base line: I am absolutely sick about the loss of places I used to go. But I remember, those who came before used to hunt where I live. I would imagine they were sad to see their dark and bloody hunting ground get strip mined, clear cut, dammed, overgrazed, paved, sub-divided and developed (even if they benefited from it). And those before them. Maybe the first guy across the Bering Straight looked back and saw a small band of assholes coming and said "There goes the neighborhood." The next generation too, finds their little postage stamp of land at a youthful, idealist age, and thinks "This is good." When they get old, they will whine too.

So, we keep cutting the pie until such point that the last slice is thinner than the blade we propose to cut it with, and somebody is still happy with the piece they got. They don't know any better. And if it every becomes not worth it to go out, there's always VR.

We all know better when it comes to what we are doing, but we don't know better than what we have.

I like what you said but what about the Principle Of Sufficient Reason? — TheMadFool

What about it? Without begging the question (or infinite regress), there cannot be a "sufficient reason" for the PSR (plus quantum uncertainty e.g. virtual particles, radioactive emissions, etc); so why bother with anthropocentrizing against the mediocrity principle in space, time & causality?

I prefer my take on Rosset's principle of sufficient reality (PoSR) instead – to wit: the real consists only in contingent facts (i.e. conditional relations) which both constitute and encompass reasoning (i.e. algorithmic compression (i.e. totality), prediction & control) and which, in turn, reason (i.e. explicability) can neither encompass (i.e. exhaust à la Eudoxus) nor transcend (i.e. be unconditional); or (in sum) necessarily there cannot be non-immanent – separated, bounded, total-complete – ontologies (e.g. "real beyond/behind the real", "deeper/ultimate real", "realer real", "reals/forms projecting appearances/shadows", etc).

And so, therefore, no "unconditional" PSR either.

(Okay, fight me, Fool! :razz:)

Yes, I accept that some may have benevolent motives. But frog-marching someone to the secret place (which is also quite a dangerous place) would still be wrong even if benevolently motivated.
It has been noted by others, notably the philosopher Seanna Shiffrin, that when it comes to conferring benefits on others without their prior consent, this is wrong unless needed to prevent the person in question coming to harm. Persuading or inviting an existing person to share in a pleasure you have discovered is one thing, but subjecting someone to it is quite another. If I am enjoying the heroin, that doesn't justify me in injecting you with the stuff without your consent.
And isn't that what benevolent procreative acts are like? Life here is addictive like heroin (people typically want more of it even when it isn't going well for them). And benevolent breeders are akin to those who want to share their addiction with someone else and so inject others with it even if they haven't asked.

Sounds psychopathic

You are not wrong, however, neither am I. Comforting eh?

so the thought of highly rational people having kids makes you shudder, but you're okay with thoughtless people having them. Okaay, and they wonder why IQ levels are dropping.
Nobody should have kids, it's both immoral and, in most cases, imprudent too. But of course, it requires some thought to recognize such things. Hence the thoughtless procreate and thoughtlessness gets passed on. Oh joy.

My view is that you are wrong. Wrong to think that it is ok to subject people to lives here for your entertainment; wrong to think that we are here for entertainment purposes. We can't both be correct.

I think there are a lot of reasons not to have children that are all compelling.

For example:
The Holocaist ( one of my main reasons for not having children if not the top reason).
The Transatlantic slave trade. Slavery.
9/11.
The Rwandan genocide
Multiple scelrosis (my older brother had primary progressive MS and died recently 2019 in his late 40's completely paralysed unable to eat, drink or talk after 25 years of illness)
Anxiety, depression, suicide and autism. (all my own experince.)
Cancer and HIV
ISIS Homophobia
Gendercide/misogyny/the oppression and persecution of women.
Two world wars.
and I could go on.

So I think a reason to create a child would have to be really really compelling to mitigate all this.

If you bring attention to all these facts you are considered "negative" If you ignore it all you are heroically optimistic.

highly rational people — Bartricks

First - I wouldn't characterize most of the people who have posted on this thread as particularly rational. At least their arguments aren't. You all seem to think since you don't want children, it's somehow irrational that most people do.

Second - A decent society doesn't have to be especially rational in the sense you mean it. What holds neighborhoods, communities, nations, and societies together is a sense of common purpose and values. Where that really comes into focus is when we are dealing with our children. Children hold communities together. Communities are made for children. As members of neighborhoods, communities, nations, and societies, our children are or purpose.

Now, you don't feel that way and you'd like to change things. Please don't expect to be taken seriously by those of us who try to understand and care about people other than ourselves.

Benevolent motivation can pre-suppose the person is not aware of the down sides we are all waiving for them too see. But likewise, is it not possible that they see an upside we don't see, or are we just more woke about how bad shit is? I mean, I see them waiving their flags all over the place, and half the time I roll my eyes. I perceive a bunch of touchy-feely shit that seems like a Kool aid they are selling themselves, or some after-the-fact justification for why they pretend to be happy. But who am I to say what is in their heart? Maybe life is a bowl of cherries and I'm just aberrant stick in the mud.

Then there's the ontological problem, where we are all but playthings made of straw. C. Stone.

In the end, another person is taking up space that I think could better be used by nothing. It is a swing at my face where my nose begins. But we all enter into evil agreements which inure to our long term detriment, even if that is only making excuses for each other. "I won't interfere with your desire to do X if you don't interfere with my desire to do Y. Oh, and we can tell each other we do it all for the children, while we actually buy another muscle truck, jet ski and snow machine for ourselves."

"The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause."

Fucking is the cause of children. Job done. — unenlightened

Yes but the question the OP's asking isn't about causes. The OP wants to know if there's a reason why we should have children i.e. in what way does being born benefit anyone including the child faerself? What do children get out of life and what do we get out of children that we must make them?

What about it? Without begging the question (or infinite regress), there cannot be a "sufficient reason" for the PoSR (plus quantum uncertainty e.g. virtual particles, radioactive emissions, etc); so why bother with anthropocentrizing against the mediocrity principle in space, time & causality? — 180 Proof

I'm a believer in the mediocrity principle of course but just because there's nothing special about something doesn't mean it doesn't have a reason, right?

The PoSR (principle of sufficient reason) is a default stance - it must be assumed in all cases in which it matters. Think of it, suppose there's something, an X, that's uncaused, inexplicable, or unjustified. The only way we can come to that conclusion [uncaused, inexplicable, unjustified] is by first looking for causes, explanations, or justification; only if the search results = 0 can we say X is uncaused, inexplicable, unjustified. It's very much like the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty - we begin every time by affirming the PoSR until it's contradicted.

I prefer my take on Rosset's principle of sufficient reality (PSR) instead – to wit: the real consists only in contingent facts (i.e. conditional relations) which both constitute and encompass reasoning (i.e. algorithmic compression (i.e. totality), prediction & control) and which, in turn, reason (i.e. explicability) can neither encompass (i.e. exhaust à la Eudoxus) nor transcend (i.e. be unconditional); or (in sum) necessarily there cannot be non-immanent – separated, bounded, total-complete – ontologies (e.g. "real beyond/behind the real", "deeper/ultimate real", "realer real", "reals/forms projecting appearances/shadows", etc).

And so, therefore, no "unconditional" PoSR either. — 180 Proof

:up: :clap: but, just so you know, I ain't looking for "deeper/ultimate real" although I must confess such a notion did appeal to me as it does to so many others I believe.

Okay, fight me, Fool! :razz: — 180 Proof

Trying to. :lol:

Having and raising a child is a primitive option for effecting positive change in the world. We’re way past the point of needing to keep this up as humans.

Having said that, I don’t regret having and raising my own children, slow and inefficient though the effect may be. It was in part this parenting process that helped bring me to this conclusion.

You don't seem to understand what it is to be rational or to be very yourself or recognise it in others.

You seem to think - question beggingly - that if you have kids you're thereby showing concern for others! Er, seriously? It's those of us who have decided not to have kids for moral reasons who are showing concern for others. I think you're suffering from what Satre would call 'bad faith'. I doubt very much moral reasons played any role whatsoever in your decision to breed, because most parents when asked why they had kids do not appeal to any moral considerations at all. My experience politely listening to parents drone on about their banal decision to breed is that most of them decided to do so for either no real reason at all - they just sleepwalked into it - or for the kind of utterly unhealthy self-indulgent reasons some of which have already been surveyed above. Concern for others wasn't in the mix. Yet they don't hesitate to give themselves a big slap on the back for doing something that was unbelievably easy, namely the act of breeding itself (sex isn't hard, is it?) or else they want praise for doing something they jolly well ought to have done, such as dedicating time and effort to looking after the poor victims of their immoral and self-indulgent decisions (you forced them into being here, 'of course' you now owe it to them to do all in your power to ensure their existence here is a nice one - you owe them a living for christ's sake!!). Maybe you're an exception. But for whose sake did you have them? Did you think the kids you had already existed somewhere and needed rescuing? Or did you think the kids you had didn't already exist, in which case how on earth could you be doing it for their sake given they didn't exist to have sakes until you created them?

Please don't expect to be taken seriously by those of us who try to understand and care about people other than ourselves. — T Clark

I don't expect to be taken seriously by those who have already procreated. For they have a huge vested interest in telling themselves they haven't committed a serious wrong, but are instead saints who are privy to some profound insight into the meaning of things thanks to their decision to let some ejaculate linger in a womb for too long.

"The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause."

Fucking is the cause of children. Job done.
— unenlightened

Yes but the question the OP's asking isn't about causes. — TheMadFool

So the principle of sufficient reason does not apply. People fuck for fucks sake. The folly of the wise is a wonder to behold. Philosophers demand a sufficient reason to smile or dance. The tragedy of the inadequacy of reason to life.

I wonder how people can care about the welfare of the children they did not have. It looks just like caring about no one to me.

They will if we get the F out of their way. But since we've trashed X% of the worlds lungs, we could replant with the 7 billion parasites currently killing the host. Then, when we've scaled back to a sustainable level, like 35 people per 10k square miles of temperate zone, they'll have some descent shade and air. — James Riley

The point is that if, for whatever reason, we're needed to do the replanting, we'll also be needed to do the tending. You can't invoke a self-sustaining nature to do the tending, but assume it incapable of doing the seed sowing. Both are natural processes, no categorical difference. I get your point about that fact that ecological systems have been damaged to extent that they might not perform normal functions, but it seems contrived to say that seed sowing is such a function but seed aftercare is not, without any evidential basis.

Repairing the damage we've done to the environment is exactly the sort of project I was referring to. It will definately take more than one generation.

Virgins trying to justify their failure with the opposite sex via over-rationalisation. I agree with @unenlightened about the ridiculousness of demanding reasons for everything. Philosophers don't even know how to live. Thinking too much and feeling too little. If you had met a women whom you love, these desires for reasons would vanish.

The PoSR (principle of sufficient reason) is a default stance - it must be assumed in all cases in which it matters. Think of it, suppose there's something, an X, that's uncaused, inexplicable, or unjustified. The only way we can come to that conclusion [uncaused, inexplicable, unjustified] is by first looking for causes, explanations, or justification; only if the search results = 0 can we say X is uncaused, inexplicable, unjustified. — TheMadFool

Like coincidences. Like merely correlated events (e.g. heuristics). Like noise (sans signals). Like radioactive emissions. Like the uniqueness of each person. Like black swans. Blah blah blah ...

The "default stance" comes from humans being probability / change-blind and intentionality-biased. We fill in the gaps with intentional/causal stories by default. Btw, what's the PSR for the PSR? What's the cause for every cause? Why everything has to have a why?

The PSR applies to human judgment & conduct; however, what warrants projecting that human bias onto facts of the matter, or the world, or universe as a whole? Our psychological utility = (meta)physical law, really?

think there are a lot of reasons not to have children that are all compelling.

For example:
The Holocaist ( one of my main reasons for not having children if not the top reason).
The Transatlantic slave trade. Slavery.
9/11.
The Rwandan genocide
Multiple scelrosis (my older brother had primary progressive MS and died recently 2019 in his late 40's completely paralysed unable to eat, drink or talk after 25 years of illness)
Anxiety, depression, suicide and autism. (all my own experince.)
Cancer and HIV
ISIS Homophobia
Gendercide/misogyny/the oppression and persecution of women.
Two world wars.
and I could go on. — Andrew4Handel

The worst scenario is that people have children to validate themselves. — Andrew4Handel

That's an inadequate response from where I am sitting.

I know or have known survivors of the Holocaust; sex slavery; Rawanda; MS; Islamic fundamentalism; World War One and Two; Cancer and many more terrible scenarios.

Each survivor I've known was pleased to be alive and thankful for being born. My own father spent a couple of years in a Nazi camp. He found the experience an aphrodisiac for living. He considered himself (for good reasons) lucky to be alive and never looked back.

Personality is a key issue. Some people are crushed by a simple office job. Some people are empowered if they survive a concentration camp. Humans are extraordinary and we can never assume the outcome.

Now, you don't feel that way and you'd like to change things. Please don't expect to be taken seriously by those of us who try to understand and care about people other than ourselves. — T Clark

I would argue that antinatalists like @Andrew4Handel @Bartricks and myself are to a large extent caring about other people, by wanting to prevent their suffering and de facto forced sutuations. If life is not a paradise, should we be creating more beings who not only suffer, but are often self-aware of their own suffering? Even if you don't agree, there is a goal of preventing negatives, and violating dignity of the potential person, so that is "other" centered, it's just that its counterintuitive because the compassion for that potential person manifests in the advocacy for their prevention of being born.

Btw, what's the PSR for the PSR? What's the cause for every cause? Why everything has to have a why?

The PSR applies to human judgment & conduct; however, what warrants projecting that human bias onto facts of the matter, or the world, or universe as a whole? Our psychological utility = (meta)physical law, really? — 180 Proof

My question about Schopenhauer was basically why the PSR coincides with atemporal/ acausal Will at all. Whence Maya if all is Will? How is Will playing tricks on itself in such a regimented fashion such as, space, time, PSR etc. The inevitability and persistence of the world as Representation, would conteadict that it is somehow illusory. Why then a "structured" and necessary illusion?

Humans are extraordinary and we can never assume the outcome. — Tom Storm

Then why risk.other peoples lives who have such widely varying evaluations and such possibilities of horrible experiences? Why should others assume another person should be forced to play the game of life? I find it hubristic and callous to think that as a parent you are some harbinger of suffering, so that your child can feel the redemption of that very suffering- the conditions of the suffering being created from the procreational decision. Sounds like a maniacal scheme. How about prevent the suffering in the first place?

Essentially you are saying you want to create the suffering subject so that they can be the hero of enduring that suffering.

Philosophers demand a sufficient reason to smile or dance — unenlightened

This statement reflects a disregard for an obvious fact. While the matter of whether the universe and life have any purpose or whether there's a reason for them isn't cut-and-dried, one has to be raving mad to believe that the various organ systems of living organisms and also our behavior, including smiles and dance, have no purpose i.e. there are no reasons why they are what they are.

I don't know how or why it is but our brains seem built for discerning purpose; in other words, our brains seem to be made for detecting and grasping reasons why this or that. Perhaps one reason for this our brain's ability is it comes in handy when survival is a big issue. When we figure out the reasons why something looks, behaves, etc. the way it looks, behaves, etc. it marks a turning point in our relationship with reality - we can bend nature to our will and the power to do that is the stuff that evolutionary success is made of, right?

Come to think of it, even inanimate matter finds a cozy niche in the world of reasons. I'm backtracking as you can see but it's the right thing to do given what's observable in the world around us. Take a look at pebbles and stone you can freely pick up from a river bed. Aren't they roundish and smooth while those found deep inland are rough and jagged? WHY? You get the idea.

If there's a point to all this it's that reasons are an intrinsic part of the natural world and all we've done is made that a cornerstone of our weltanschauung. The payoff is a heretofore unseen and obscence level of control over our environment. This, I suspect, is why we've made the principle of sufficient reason what it was and is - the bedrock of our understanding of the world.

Like coincidences. — 180 Proof

Yes, indeed. Coincidences are events that can't be causally connected. That's to say, the first order of business is to look for a causal relationship and then if none can be found, we might say, "oh! it's just a coincidence."

Notice what happened here. We had to assume causation and only when that turned out to be untrue did we conclude coincidence. The same applies to the PoSR. We must always assume the PoSR and then, if our search for a reason is unsuccesful i.e. no reason can be found, we can justifiably assert that we've found something that lacks a reason.

Btw, what's the PSR for the PSR? — 180 Proof

Please read my reply to unenlightened.

Someone as learned as you would know that our brains are pattern-detecting meat machines. You see a tree with all its branches bent to the west and you ask why? The reason you deduce is a constant easterly wind. You hear your pet dog barking loudly. Why? You quickly realize you have a visitor. You see someone laughing in the other room. Why? Oh! quite possibly the person was told a joke. The motif that unites these disparate experiences is reason and thus the PoSR.