I cannot find the post from sushi that you are quoting from. It does not turn up in my mentions. — Bartricks

Here:

If we met a sentient asexual alien species who suffered in the same way as humans do. What would your antinatalist advice be for them? — universeness

Don't procreate.

For many humans, not reproducing would cause great mental and physical harm as it is a natural compulsion developed over millions of years and it is a very very strong instinct. Why are you unconcerned about this set of harms your antinatalism would cause? — universeness

Because not being able to unnecessarily harm others, even if it frustrates ones preferences, even if one is doing it because one wants to focus only on the possible positive outcomes, and intends only the best, is wrong. Positive intentions and hopes do not negate the unnecessary harm. Also, as you stated, sometimes people want to impose unnecessary harms (and call it "learning experiences"). This is mere paternalistic aggression of deciding for others what kind of harms are "benign". I am not talking about just parent's duty to care for children in a certain societal setting either. I mean all of life is going to have harms, and you can try your best to dismiss them as "learning experiences", but then you can cause any harm to someone else in the name of "learning experiences", but you most likely would not do that. Rather, unnecessary harm is unnecessary harm. There should be no cover for imposing on others unnecessary harm for any presumption of "what is best for that person" to happen. I can make a slippery slope argument there, but I won't even bother because even on the face of it, it should be apparent that procreation is a glaring exception in what is otherwise misguided thing to do someone.

The second is to argue that despite the injustice that creating us causes, there is something even more morally significant at stake that justifies us in doing so. — Bartricks

The slingshot argument does not claim to establish that continuation of the race justifies any course of action or even that it's a good idea, let alone a duty. The argument establishes that if it is unjust to procreate and if justice is preferable to injustice and if 'ought' entails 'can', then the end of the race cannot be ruled out as less preferable than its continuation. Nothing is said or implied or entailed about the end of the race or its continuation being good, bad or indifferent.

If we all stopped procreating that would not make nihilism true — Bartricks

I agree. Nihilism may well not be true, whether we procreate or not. Actions, right or wrong, do not, merely by being committed or omitted, establish or invalidate moral principles. Murder would be wrong, whether or not anybody ever commits a murder. And if we all start murdering each other, that would not make murder right.

Murder would be wrong, whether or not anybody ever commits a murder. And if we all start murdering each other, that would not make murder right. — Cuthbert

This is a salient point that people keep overlooking. There are the few cases where there are sociopaths that do these things.. I would say that is a small minority (but can be very damaging). The majority may simply just reason wrongly because preferences are often pitted against principles.

In cases of murder, it is much more black and white. It is the grey area that reasoning has to really get more refined to overcome one's mere preferences. Procreation is one such case. As you indicate, there is a pessimism to it and a sort of aesthetic sadness for many people in the idea of the end result being no person around.. But that doesn't mean the principle is not true. Much of that sadness may come from projection of fears of death and loneliness. But it's not part of the reasoning.

In other words, you can't be committed to moral reasoning and then say, "I feel lonely and sad about some projected future state, ergo, I get to inflict unnecessary harms on others because that makes me sad".

I am still not seeing a third option. My argument concludes that procreation is wrong, other things being equal. To challenge it one needs an argument that implies the opposite or one needs to deny a premise.

To challenge it one needs an argument that implies the opposite or one needs to deny a premise. — Bartricks

I agree.

Let's grant all the OP. — Cuthbert

That was the first premiss in the post I called the 'slingshot' argument. The argument does not dispute any claim made in the OP. Let it be that the infant is undeserving and that the parents commit injustice and that nothing can justify or excuse their actions. Granted for sake of argument.

The reason I called the argument 'slingshot' is that it does not dispute the OP. Rather, it establishes the epistemic cost of agreeing with it.

As you indicate, there is a pessimism to it and a sort of aesthetic sadness for many people in the idea of the end result being no person around.. But that doesn't mean the principle is not true. — schopenhauer1

Schopenhauer, you are willing to bear that cost. It's admirable for consistency. It is unlikely to find wide adherence but that is perhaps not relevant.

And still, as you say, Bartricks, the OP remains unchallenged by my argument, which explicitly accepts the OP for sake of argument.

I got it - but I've been listening to Billy Joel ever since you posted..... — Cuthbert

Can't beat a bit of Billy Joel. A much better songwriter than most, including Paul McCartney imo.

A preacher doesn't make arguments. I make arguments. You just say stuff. It's tedious. Up your game. — Bartricks

You have been knocked out so many times you are punchy and stuck in repeat BS mode.
You remain an entertainment!
How many contributers did you get to your second BS thread on antinatalism?
Only some sympathy posting from the tired musings of shopenhauer1.

Don't procreate. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps you should read up on how asexuality works!

Because not being able to unnecessarily harm others, even if it frustrates ones preferences, even if one is doing it because one wants to focus only on the possible positive outcomes, and intends only the best, is wrong. — schopenhauer1

Nonsense, as for many it would not merely 'frustrate one's preference,' it would prevent them from fulfilling a deeply held natural compulsion and would cause them serious mental and physical harm.
You just handwave this suffering away which reveals you as a hypocrite who does not care about the suffering of others if their suffering does not fit the skewed logic you use to promote your morose antinatalist viewpoint.

I mean all of life is going to have harms, and you can try your best to dismiss them as "learning experiences", but then you can cause any harm to someone else in the name of "learning experiences", but you most likely would not do that. Rather, unnecessary harm is unnecessary harm. — schopenhauer1

More nonesense, all of life, is NOT going to have harms. When you take a painkiller your pain reduces, it does not get worse. Do all medicines do harm in your skewed world? Antinatalism is an unnecessary harm it causes many many harms. You, therefore, advocate for harming others by suggesting that no one deserves children despite reproduction being a strong natural dictate for the survival of any species. Your antinatalism is vile but harmless and will only ever gain any credence among the fringefreaks in society.

You have been knocked out so many times you are punchy and stuck in repeat BS mode. — universeness

Yeah, right. You really hurt me when you smashed your face onto my knee and then repeatedly hit my foot with your crotch. Good technique!

Thanks, I admit I did not see this post

1) “This is, I believe, a new argument for antinatalism.

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.”

- Having done nothing neither makes someone ‘innocent’ nor ‘guilty’. It is irrelevant. — I like sushi

No, it makes one innocent. If you think otherwise, explain - don't just blankly state as if you saying it makes it so. To be guilty one has to have done something, yes? So, if someone has not done anything, they are not guilty of anything. And that's to be innocent. That's an explanation. Now provide me with an explanation of how someone who has not done anything is not, in fact, innocent (don't just nay say).

2) “An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.”

- You have failed to explain this. If your position is that an innocent person deserves no harm but that is what innocent means then you have no argument. You are just stating something and expecting people to follow. — I like sushi

It's a conceptual truth. It's also a premise in an argument, not the argument itself.

If you think the premise is false then you need to do the following: construct an argument in which the negation of that premise is the conclusion and the premises of which are very plausible - that is, premises that seem self-evident to reason.

Note: going through expressing hostility towards premises does not constitute a rational criticism of them. So far this is all you've been doing.

3) “Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.”

- Unsubstantiated claim. — I like sushi

It's a premise. So, yes, it's a claim. Arguments must include at least one. (I've noticed that most people here do not understand this and think it a fault in an argument taht it has premises - including you, it would seem).

Do you think it is false? Does your reason not tell you directly that an innocent person deserves to be happy?
What about this claim: innocent persons deserve respect. That's true, isn't it? And they haven't done anything to deserve that respect.
Now, doesn't an innocent person also deserve to have their interests taken into account, even though they have yet to do anything? And so they deserve to have their happiness promoted. Isn't the best - because simplest - explanation of that that they deserve happiness?

Again: it is no criticism of an argument to point out that it has premises. You need to challenge its premises by showing how a rational consideration implies its negation. (Note, this is a lot trickier than just expressing negative attitudes towards premises)

5) “This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.”

- We know this because life without any degree of ‘harm’ whatsoever is not ‘life’. Life requires learning and learning is always, at some stage, a hardship. — I like sushi

That in no way challenges the premise. The premise is true, yes? That's all you've said - you've confirmed the premise, not challenged it.

6) “It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.”

- None of this follow as you are riding on too many unsubstantiated claims and poorly sketched out terms. — I like sushi

Show it, don't spray it. THis is just another version of the 'the problem with your argument is that it has premises" 'criticism'.

Note, every claim I have made is true. You haven't raised a reasonable doubt about any of them.
Me: 2+ 2 = 4

You: Unsubstantiated claim!! What if I think 2 + 2 = 89? Boom. Owned!

Me: if P, then Q is true, and if P is true, then Q is true.

You: Unsubstantiated claim!

And so on.

Again, if you disagree with a premise, P, then you need to construct an argument like this:

1. If P, then Q
2. Not Q
3. Therefore not P

Now, I would claim that in order to do that you are going to have to write something silly for 2. But we'll see.

Perhaps you should read up on how asexuality works! — universeness

Dude, you should know basic definitions before you make a fool of yourself: "Procreation- the production of offspring; reproduction".
Reproduction can be asexual or sexual.

Nonsense, as for many it would not merely 'frustrate one's preference,' it would prevent them from fulfilling a deeply held natural compulsion — universeness

It's arguable that it is a "compulsion".. Wanting something like a baby, comes from the same place as wanting other things. It's a pseudo-scientific type of misconception that the idea of "Wanting a baby" is something more deeply rooted. You can make an argument that sexual pleasure is evolutionarily selected to be pleasurable, and people tend to want what is pleasurable, and that can lead to procreation.. But the actual concept of "I....Want....a.... (Put anything here)…" is much more than basic brain stem operation, or other subcortical activity.. It comes from the same process that shapes your other preferences. In other words, there is no "I want a baby instinct"... only "I want a baby preference" which correlates with possible "instincts" for pleasure which lead to procreation. It is just convenient for you to conflate the two and make this particular preference into an "instinct".. I can also sympathize (a little) with your confusion as in most other animals, there are strong instincts when animals are in heat that lead to sex which lead to reproduction.. But that is not how human reproduction works. There is no black and white "if/then" type reproduction going on.. A lot of it is cultural, personal, individual, existential (as with other preferences) much more than your reductionist "instinct".

You just handwave this suffering away which reveals you as a hypocrite who does not care about the suffering of others if their suffering does not fit the skewed logic you use to promote your morose antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

Again, unnecessarily harming people is always wrong. To feel like you are missing out on a preference- even a strongly held one, is not an excuse to go ahead and unnecessarily harm someone because you don't want to feel the loss of the preference. It's like an activity you were looking forward to sounded really fun to you, but it turned out that activity was very harmful.. It doesn't mean, too bad do the preferred activity.

More nonesense, all of life, is NOT going to have harms. When you take a painkiller your pain reduces, it does not get worse. Do all medicines do harm in your skewed world? Antinatalism is an unnecessary harm it causes many many harms. You, therefore, advocate for harming others by suggesting that no one deserves children despite reproduction being a strong natural dictate for the survival of any species. — universeness

I'm only addressing your question as the rest is ad hom unrelated rambling. I was talking about specifically using the justification that your unnecessary harm is excusable because it will precipitate a "learning experience".. But learning experiences are only justified when they are necessary.. To create the mess so that someone can "have a learning experience" is the messed up problem.. It's causing harm to see a person overcome harm.. It's not JUST helping someone overcome harm. If you don't see the problem there or don't understand it, I can't help you.. that's on you being too caught up with your indignation to not engage in what I am saying.

Your antinatalism is vile but harmless and will only ever gain any credence among the fringefreaks in society. — universeness

See above about being too caught up in your own indignation.. This is aggressive ad hom, and not sticking to any sort of argument. Also, concluding with an ad populum fallacy doesn't help your case much either.

Yeah, right. You really hurt me when you smashed your face onto my knee and then repeatedly hit my foot with your crotch. Good technique! — Bartricks

There you go! You don't even see the sources of your own suffering. Your stressed brain invokes my imaginary face and crotch, that's probably just your imaginary thinking underpants trying to communicate with you again, as your compromised intellect smashes off the canvas once again.
You have been revealed as a shallow thinker by almost every poster on this thread, you are just too far gone to realise it. You continue to entertain me as well as be a good exemplar of a bad interlocutor.

Antinatalism & Time travel.

Travel to the future and ask X "do you wish you weren't born?" If the answer is "yes", go back to X's parents and inform 'em that X doesn't want to exist. The parents must comply with X's request (contraception preferrable but abortion permitted only a last resort). The perfect solution - customized to the client, just as it should be, eh?

Dude, you should know basic definitions before you make a fool of yourself: "Procreation- the production of offspring; reproduction".
Reproduction can be asexual or sexual. — schopenhauer1

Right back at you DUDE! Asexual reproduction does not require procreation with a mate so advising a creature that does not reproduce through sex, not to reproduce shows your ignorance.
Asexual reproduction happens through parthenogenesis, there is no choice for the parent involved DUDE.

It's arguable that it is a "compulsion" — schopenhauer1

No it's not! For many humans it is the biggest imperative in their existence. I know that for you, this is just another of those pesky, inconvenient biological facts, that debunks your confused antinatalism.
The entire animal kingdom demonstrates how strong the reproductive imperative is every single year and we are a member of the processes that produced all other life species on the Earth.
You attempt to handwave away all of that rigorous scientific biological truth with the claim that 'human reproductive urges are no more than insignificant whims, similar to an urge for some chocolate.' You are peddling BS bottles of Dr schopenhauer1 or bottles of batshit crazy batricks as the elixir to solve the problem of human suffering. :rofl: You could make a good comedy duo but not a valid argument.

Again, unnecessarily harming people is always wrong. — schopenhauer1

You have been told many times now that this is just your shallow thinking and the issue of human suffering is NOT COVERED by your small concept of 'unnecessary harms.' You have been given many examples. Here is another for you. Don't touch things that are too hot because such will cause you harm. Receiving pain from something which is too hot is not an unnecessary harm, but it is a harm regardless of your status as an innocent. Your dimwitted antinatalism offers the solution 'well if you are not born then you cannot burn your skin and experience that suffering.' How seriously dumb is that?
As others have already told you, if no one exists then you cannot even pose the dilemma! The universe would most likely have NO PURPOSE! If we exist then we give the universe purpose and that is far far more important than your silly little fears regarding human suffering. Stop being such a coward and work hard towards causing as much joy in the lives of others as you can. In that way you might become useful to human society instead of a complete waste of DNA. We are short of many good species like panda bears we are not short of misanthropic humans like you.
You and bartricks can hold hands and skip towards oblivion together.

Right back at you DUDE! Asexual reproduction does not require procreation with a mate so advising a creature that does not reproduce through sex, not to reproduce shows your ignorance.
Asexual reproduction happens through parthenogenesis, there is no choice for the parent involved DUDE. — universeness

I'll give you this, I lost the thread of your original post on asexual reproduction. All I responded to at that point was this:

If we met a sentient asexual alien species who suffered in the same way as humans do. What would your antinatalist advice be for them?

I had to look back to see if you mentioned the part about asexual reproduction having less choice (because that is the salient point).. So let me get your thought experiment straight: you have a made up an alien who apparently is sentient enough where I can communicate with them and where they can evaluate my input into the philosophy of procreation, BUT also asexually reproduce in a way where they can't help it. I would simply consider that an unfortunate situation, and not a moral one because they can't have a choice in the matter. What do you think I would say? Morality comes from being able to effectively make a decision one way or the other. A lion eating its prey can't deliberate on it, so it is amoral. It is unfortunate for the prey getting eaten at that particular time though, nonetheless.

No it's not! For many humans it is the biggest imperative in their existence. I know that for you, this is just another of those pesky, inconvenient biological facts, that debunks your confused antinatalism. — universeness

Rhetorical blather. Stick to an argument, it's a better look.

The entire animal kingdom demonstrates how strong the reproductive imperative is every single year and we are a member of the processes that produced all other life species on the Earth.
You attempt to handwave away all of that rigorous scientific biological truth with the claim that 'human reproductive urges are no more than insignificant whims, similar to an urge for some chocolate.' You are peddling BS bottles of Dr schopenhauer1 or bottles of batshit crazy batricks as the elixir to solve the problem of human suffering. :rofl: You could make a good comedy duo but not a valid argument. — universeness

Mostly more blather and no argument.. The little argument you try to make doesn't counter anything I said. If you want to counter it, make a point about how this specific preference is different than other perferences other than simply the parallel circumstance that it is about continuing the species.. Just because an act is about continuing the species doesn't de facto mean that act comes from a place of unthinking, non-deliberative instinct. We happen to be a species that reproduces in a complex way that involves all the things I mentioned in the earlier post. The actual preference for "wanting X" works the same whether it's for babies, food, cars, house, drugs, whatever. You have not overcome the argument that to conflate THIS preference with instinct is pseudo-scientific misconception. In other words.. I refer you to my last post and try again but without just insults as your arguments.

You have been given many examples. — universeness

Actually I have not been given "many examples" or "many examples" that would contradict the rule at least.

Don't touch things that are too hot because such will cause you harm. Receiving pain from something which is too hot is not an unnecessary harm, but it is a harm regardless of your status as an innocent. — universeness

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Unnecessary harm here has been explained earlier. It has to follow criteria like:
1. You are doing it on behalf of someone else...
2. You are NOT ameliorating a greater harm for a lesser harm (so lightly punishing a child for bad behavior or making them go to school or get a shot would NOT be unnecessary under most circumstances in our society)
3. It could have been avoided and you knew it

Things that are unnecessary harms are harms that didn't need to be imposed on someone, but they were anyways. All future harms X will befall someone who is procreated. The cause of the procreation is the parent's behavior. All future harms X would not have befallen someone if they were not effected to exist by the acts of others..

Your dimwitted antinatalism offers the solution 'well if you are not born then you cannot burn your skin and experience that suffering.' How seriously dumb is that? — universeness

The way you phrase it doesn't make sense. It's always morality about what the parents do, not the child born.

In that way you might become useful to human society instead of a complete waste of DNA — universeness

Yeah your sense of morality is messed up to me because it implies that people are to be measured by their "usefulness". I am sure you are going to say "useful" is a vague notion of something that "helps the species survive" or something like that... If it was being compassionate to people, then while I agree, to procreate people so that they can fix each other's problems is just the leaky bucket argument. I say fix the leak, not clean the mess. And before you drone on about how no humans would exist to fix the leak for.. I refer you to philosopher David Benatar's asymmetry argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

We are short of many good species like panda bears we are not short of misanthropic humans like you. — universeness

You sound like an inventory clerk checking the back of the warehouse. We are short on panda bears..
Anyways, if you are going to continue to berate me with insults instead of simply arguing your point, I am done here.. I have been on this forum for way too long and have argued against way more interesting posters to not have to be belittled by your poor debate skills. Insults and ad homs are unnecessary in this case. It makes your arguments LESS credible because it sounds desperate, like you need the theatrics of "you dimwit" and "coward" and things like this.. It also just hurts the philosophical spirit of dialogue in general.. Two political sides just insulting each other is not debating the policies at hand. We've all seen examples of constructive debate and something that resembles a debate but was just a way to insult the other side.

Note, every claim I have made is true — Bartricks

You are a moron. That is not ‘true’ it is my opinion. Do you understand the difference? I think not.

Bye bye. Not interested in any exchange with you for at least 3 months. You are officially in my sin bin.

Have fun :)

I would simply consider that an unfortunate situation, and not a moral one because they can't have a choice in the matter. What do you think I would say? — schopenhauer1

Perhaps from the 'thought experiment' of a sentient species that reproduces asexually and has no natural control over the process but still 'suffers' in life in the exact same way humans do, would help you see how shallow your antinatalism is. The fact that humans procreate sexually is a biological happenstance and therefore the origin of procreation through sex had no moral driver (as I have now stated many times.)
Human procreation is not the source of all human suffering as humans were produced by processes with a time span of 13.8 billion years. If you advocate for terminating that process then you are negating every process which naturally occurred within that 13.8 billion years to produce humans and your sole, tiny little reason is human suffering. You are unable to see how ridiculous your reasoning and your suggestion is. Humans are capable of reducing the more heinous forms of human suffering if misanthropes like you give us a chance to. Meantime try to help out rather than add to the suffering by typing the BS you type.

A lion eating its prey can't deliberate on it, so it is amoral. It is unfortunate for the prey getting eaten at that particular time though, nonetheless — schopenhauer1

So by your logic, would you stop a lion from eating a human? If your answer is yes then why do you feel differently when its a lamb getting eaten by the lion? Does the lamb not suffer?
Does your morality about suffering flex quite a bit depending on which creatures are involved?
Animals suffer, would you not prefer your antinatalism to free them from their horrific sufferings?

it's a better look. — schopenhauer1

I think your viewpoints are illogical so I am hardly likely to pay attention to your opinions of what is 'a better look.'

You have not overcome the argument that to conflate THIS preference with instinct is pseudo-scientific misconception. — schopenhauer1

Nonsense, You claim I have not 'overcome' your shallow arguments, I say I have. Others will judge. I am not interested in a panto exchange with your ridiculous non-scientific claims.

Unnecessary harm here has been explained earlier. It has to follow criteria like: — schopenhauer1

I have little interest regarding your dictated criteria that the English phrase 'unnecessary harm' HAS to follow. You use sweeping unscientific generalisation constantly, so you have demonstrated no ability to posit balanced arguments. You handwave away biological fact such as the reproductive imperative and try to convince others that the reproductive imperative in humans is no more powerful than mere whim.
That handwaving alone is enough evidence to condemn you as a pure sophist who is trying to peddle BS to avoid admitting that your antinatalism is based on limited illogical shallow thinking on your part.

It's always morality about what the parents do, not the child born. — schopenhauer1

There is no morality regarding a child before it is born. That which does not exist cannot have any moral aspect to it. This has been pointed out to you by many posters. This has not penetrated your foggy thinking yet!

I refer you to philosopher David Benatar's asymmetry argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar — schopenhauer1

He had to be born to make his argument, did he not? Just like you had to be born to make your dimwitted antinatalist arguments!

like you need the theatrics of "you dimwit" and "coward" and things like this.. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism is a vile viewpoint. I offer no apology for any insult I have so far typed regarding your attempt to peddle it as valid. I think antinatalism is dimwitted and cowardly, that does not mean you are a complete dimwit and a total coward, just sometimes and only in my opinion based on your typings.
I am sure your opinion of me is not a flattering one. I don't care if you choose to express your disdain in the same way as I do or not. I leave it to the site moderators to raise a concern with me if they have any.

Two political sides just insulting each other is not debating the policies at hand. We've all seen examples of constructive debate and something that resembles a debate but was just a way to insult the other side. — schopenhauer1

I agree if that's all they do is insult each other. I think your antinatalist arguments have been debunked and you are the one displaying the sour grapes. If you are a little timmy timid and you cant take any insults then perhaps you are correct and you should not respond to me anymore as you are perhaps too precious to not suffer due to your perception of my discourteous approach to your 'dialogue.'

I think what you mean is that you are unable to raise a reasonable doubt about any premise of the argument. Like most, all you can do is express negative attitudes towards the argument. In your mind that constitutes a criticism. But reality doesn't have to please you. So, that an argument displeases you is not evidence its conclusion is false.
Once more, you need to argue that newly created people are not undeserving of harm or that life does not visit undeserved harms on them. You have done neither of these things.

The fact that humans procreate sexually is a biological happenstance and therefore the origin of procreation through sex had no moral driver (as I have now stated many times.) — universeness

The origin of procreation has never been the problem. It is the procreation that is the problem, so this is just odd non-sequitor.

Human procreation is not the source of all human suffering as humans were produced by processes with a time span of 13.8 billion years. If you advocate for terminating that process then you are negating every process which naturally occurred within that 13.8 billion years to produce humans and your sole, tiny little reason is human suffering. You are unable to see how ridiculous your reasoning and your suggestion is. Humans are capable of reducing the more heinous forms of human suffering if misanthropes like you give us a chance to. Meantime try to help out rather than add to the suffering by typing the BS you type. — universeness

Huh? You have so many fallacies here I can't really be bothered to list them all but they include:

Causal fallacy or irrelevant conclusion (possibly also an attribution fallacy, strawman and red herring)- The question at hand is the moral question of what can deliberated upon regarding suffering, not the origin of "human suffering" in general. It's similar to attributing a murder to human evolution or compassionate act to human evolution.. the origin of the behavior is not the question at hand in this case, but the choice on whether to procreate.

Unnecessary ad hom- the argument is not valid or invalid because you think I'm a misanthrope or you have prescriptions for me.

So by your logic, would you stop a lion from eating a human? If your answer is yes then why do you feel differently when its a lamb getting eaten by the lion? Does the lamb not suffer?
Does your morality about suffering flex quite a bit depending on which creatures are involved?
Animals suffer, would you not prefer your antinatalism to free them from their horrific sufferings? — universeness

Again, it's not about me, but I do eat mainly vegetarian and do care about animal welfare if that makes a difference.

This is not my argument, so I guess red herring.. but mainly out of your ignorance of my argument. If I had the means to stop a lion from eating a human (a weapon), yes I would because then I can deliberate, and in this case, the moral choice is on me. If I wasn't there, then there is no one to deliberate, and no moral decision can take place.

I see animal upon animal suffering as different precisely because it is non-deliberative actions.

I think your viewpoints are illogical so I am hardly likely to pay attention to your opinions of what is 'a better look.' — universeness

Genetic fallacy and avoiding the issue- you don't like the source (me), so it must be wrong. But it's true, ad homs are considered not legitimate in good faith argumentation, because they detract from the argument. They are an act of desperation or embellishment, or appeals to emotion from the proverbial "crowd", or meant to throw someone off by making them angry or hurting their feelings.

Nonsense, You claim I have not 'overcome' your shallow arguments, I say I have. Others will judge. I am not interested in a panto exchange with your ridiculous non-scientific claims. — universeness

Avoiding the question and argument out of indignity.. I presented to you a claim and you have yet to address it, mainly due to your disdain and appeals to indignity.

You use sweeping unscientific generalisation constantly, so you have demonstrated no ability to posit balanced arguments. — universeness

I was giving you what I meant by "unnecessary harms". My arguments earlier in the thread pointed out that by enacting such harms onto someone, it is a violation of their dignity. It is using them. All one has to agree on here is that there is a moral intuition to not cause unnecessary harm, agnostic of circumstance. I also explained how it is crucial to understand what is meant by unnecessary harms versus (possible) necessary harms, and what that means for the deliberative process.

You handwave away biological fact such as the reproductive imperative and try to convince others that the reproductive imperative in humans is no more powerful than mere whim.
That handwaving alone is enough evidence to condemn you as a pure sophist who is trying to peddle BS to avoid admitting that your antinatalism is based on limited illogical shallow thinking on your part. — universeness

Again, I see no scientific claim for your reproductive imperative. If it is so pervasive in scientific literature, show me the overwhelming evidence that this exists. Keep in mind though, I admitted that physical pleasure is generally selected for and correlated with procreation. Rather, I am refuting that the actual idea of "I want a baby/I want to reproduce" is an instinct.

There is no morality regarding a child before it is born. That which does not exist cannot have any moral aspect to it. This has been pointed out to you by many posters. This has not penetrated your foggy thinking yet! — universeness

There is a difference between things that aren't present and can never happen based on my actions (meeting a leprechaun) and things that aren't present but can definitely happen in the future based on my actions (procreation). Conflating the two is some kind of confusion of what is the case or simply a bad strawman.

He had to be born to make his argument, did he not? Just like you had to be born to make your dimwitted antinatalist arguments! — universeness

Besides the obvious resorting to ad hom here.. This goes back to my example of the island. If a person is alone on an island, no morality comes into play. Once someone lands on the island, morality comes into play. Morality is not negated by there not being enough people on the island for morality to take place. Morality obtains when the conditions are around for morality to be in play.

Antinatalism is a vile viewpoint. — universeness

Just opinion, not an argument.

I offer no apology for any insult I have so far typed regarding your attempt to peddle it as valid. I think antinatalism is dimwitted and cowardly, that does not mean you are a complete dimwit and a total coward, just sometimes and only in my opinion based on your typings.
I am sure your opinion of me is not a flattering one. I don't care if you choose to express your disdain in the same way as I do or not. I leave it to the site moderators to raise a concern with me if they have any. — universeness

Indeed, this is the kind of behavior unnecessary in a philosophy forum and leads to unnecessary and incessant trolling.

I think your antinatalist arguments have been debunked and you are the one displaying the sour grapes. — universeness

Displaying sour grapes? That would be like what you are doing.. A bunch of insults and crazy desperate blather.

If you are a little timmy timid and you cant take any insults then perhaps you are correct and you should not respond to me anymore as you are perhaps too precious to not suffer due to your perception of my discourteous approach to your 'dialogue.' — universeness

Just stop being an asshole and argue your point. Otherwise you are right, you are not worth debating because most of it is rhetorical blather.

The question at hand is the moral question of what can deliberated upon regarding suffering, not the origin of "human suffering" in general. — schopenhauer1

So you are unable to deliberate on the origin of human suffering, at least you are beginning to admit to your shortfalls. Some progress in that at least.

t's similar to attributing a murder to human evolution or compassionate act to human evolution. — schopenhauer1

Human murder cannot occur if humans did not evolve Sherlock!

the argument is not valid or invalid because you think I'm a misanthrope or you have prescriptions for me. — schopenhauer1

All that you are influences all that you type. Try to think like a grown-up man instead of a dimwitted brat, your brain will appreciate the revelation.

I see animal upon animal suffering as different precisely because it is non-deliberative actions. — schopenhauer1

Suffering is suffering, try to understand that. Its the responsibility of all humans to help reduce all suffering. Just get on with doing that and you will become less useless than you are at present.

I presented to you a claim and you have yet to address it, — schopenhauer1

Only in your own head but I have in fact fully addressed your claims and have debunked them, despite your petted lip.

Genetic fallacy and avoiding the issue- you don't like the source (me), so it must be wrong. But it's true, ad homs are considered not legitimate in good faith argumentation, because they detract from the argument. They are an act of desperation or embellishment, or appeals to emotion from the proverbial "crowd", or meant to throw someone off by making them angry or hurting their feelings — schopenhauer1

Yes, it's ok, you have already revealed yourself as a tenderfoot, you don't have to keep crying in Latin.

Again, I see no scientific claim for your reproductive imperative. If it is so pervasive in scientific literature, show me the overwhelming evidence that this exists. — schopenhauer1

I have no interest in educating you, do your own work!

things that aren't present but can definitely happen in the future based on my actions (procreation). — schopenhauer1

What you don't get you fool is that there is no future under antinatalism, your cowardly solution to human suffering is to advocate for a purposeless universe. That logic is moronic.

Indeed, this is the kind of behavior unnecessary in a philosophy forum and leads to unnecessary and incessant trolling. — schopenhauer1

No, it just means that you get told some home truths regarding your shallow thinking. You assign yourself significance that you just don't possess.

Just stop being an asshole and argue your point. Otherwise you are right, you are not worth debating bedirectlycause most of it is rhetorical blather. — schopenhauer1

As arse is a very good waste disposal system. It lets a person rid themselves of a lot of shit.
Perhaps that's why you type directly from it! Just trying to help you maintain your wish to cry Latin tears Timmy.

Rather, I am refuting that the actual idea of "I want a baby/I want to reproduce" is an instinct. — schopenhauer1

So the fact that almost every animal species has a 'mating season,' and humans are members of all animal species. for you, is not scientific evidence that procreation has a massive instinctive imperative.
The fact that humans in the past stole women from other tribes to grow their own tribe also should be handwaved away. The physical pleasure aspect is an attractor Sherlock, it's there to encourage procreation, the fact that sex feels good is why it's useful to the imperative of procreation. You need to learn more biology.

Morality obtains when the conditions are around for morality to be in play. — schopenhauer1

So, only AFTER a baby has been born then and not before. So as others have already pointed out to you in this thread. It's nonsense to suggest that it's immoral to have children as they are born innocent and then suffer because they cannot be born innocent if they are never born. So the 'innocence' point in the OP has already been debunked.
Your arguments regarding your conflated criteria for 'unnecessary harms' are utterly subjective and on a case-by-case basis, far too complicated and nuanced to be used as an argument for such a blunt dimwitted solution as antinatalism.
A forest fire could be labeled an unnecessary harm but after the fire, a lot of new growth occurs.
As I have told you many times your thinking is too shallow. You deserve every insult thrown at you as you will not accept scientific fact, you will still try to blunderbuss your way through because you are incapable of admitting you are completely wrong. You are a prideful idiot.

My hunch is that antinatalism will make complete sense in about 3 - 5 decades. Antinatalists just wait it out...natalists will be hunted down and hanged from the nearest tree for being part of the "conspiracy" to cause unimaginable human suffering by encouraging and precipitating a population explosion that exceeds the Earth's carrying capacity. :snicker:

natalists will be hunted down and hanged from the nearest tree for being part of the "conspiracy" to cause unimaginable human suffering by encouraging and precipitating a population explosion that exceeds the Earth's carrying capacity. — Agent Smith

You should write stories based on dystopian futures, you would entertain many children and perhaps even give some jollies to the antinatalists. Are your fears not alleviated by future projections of humans living beyond our home planet or if we organise our living spaces and our ability to produce resources without destroying our ecology? I live in Scotland and we have many many uninhabited island spaces and in fact a lot of mainland space. Scotland is relatively empty and could support many more people imo.
Humans have to get their social and political practices correct. We have simply been unable to control the nefarious amongst us adequately so far. I personally think we do control them and bring them down more successfully that we have in the past. We still have some king-style creatures like Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, but we just ended the political career of the clown BO JO in the UK so we can bring down the nefarious. We just have to learn how to prevent creatures like him or Trump gaining power in the first place. POWERFUL CHECKS AND BALANCES is what our human race needs not moronic antinatalism!

Do the math.

1. There's a certain limit to the number of peeps the Earth can support which is a polite way of saying if we don't act soon we'll become mass-murdering cannibals.

2. Look at the populatiom growth rate.

Question: When do we reach critical mass and set off pandemonium?

The only One solution is to have 0 children or a maximum of 2 (China's one child policy is an examplar of how to deal with overpopulation).

Well, I certainly don't advocate for a continuous population explosion that is unsustainable but the goal of antinatalism is not population control. If it was, I would support it. It's goal is the extinction of all human life with the goal of ending all human suffering. A vile, insipid proposal IN MY OPINION.
There are certain proposals made by people that I find disgusting, fascism, superiority, eugenics, antinatalism etc. I will not be a hypocrite and pretend that I give any credence to such ideas.
Anyone who suggests such ideas have value is not someone I will be nice to when they try to support such ideas. Antinatalism has nothing to do with the need to control human population growth, it wishes to terminate all human existence based on stupid thinking.
Antinatalists are .............. You can add the biggest insult you can think of and it would probably fall short of my low opinion of the idea and the people who peddle it.

Point made, point taken. What I wanted to call people's attention to was that antinatalism isn't such a bad idea - it's a philosophy whose time will come in the next 3 - 5 decades when life will be hell (overcrowding, cut-throat competition, dog eat dog world. It's telling that these expressions are true even now, a time natalists say is not bad enough for antinatalism. Imagine the horrors coming down the pike :fear: :groan:)

At the risk of coming off as a fatalist, I'd say the extinction of the human race is a forgone conclusion - the writing's on the wall. The choices on offer are not do we want to survive or go extinct; au contraire they are how do we wanna go extinct - there's the easy way (antinatalism) and there's the hard way (crimes against humanity).

I hope you become more positive in your predictions of the future of our species.
You might be a happier person if you tackle your hopelessness in new ways.
Another hour will still pass, regardless of your decision to live through it with despair as your main companion or hope. Choose life, don't see life as a curse because despair will become all you are or ever will be.