Is it necessarily impossible to improve the world at some point in the future, such that the balance of probability for an individual born skews to a good, rather than a poor existence? — Sinderion
Are antinatalists here saying that existence necessarily entails suffering (at least in this world)? — Sinderion
Also, do antinatalists here have any arguments for/against implementing political measures to enforce their moral principles? — Sinderion
I mean suffering, not little whiny bitching about having to fill up your gas tank) — darthbarracuda
Having children is forcing them to experience suffering, whether you like to admit this or not. — darthbarracuda
Love, intellectual discovery, great sex (not once, but over and over again for years) laughter, religious ecstasy, art, film, opera (often about suffering -- like Madam Butterfly from the Met today), great books, wonderful bicycle rides, swimming in the ocean and almost drowning, beach combing, laying in the warm sun, desires both met and unfulfilled, wonderful food, like the lamb chops at Figlios (they stopped making them, so life is a bit less worth living), the scallops and clam chowder at Legal Seafood, the fried clams at the little fly-spec shop in Mattapan--Simco's on the Bridge, chocolate, blueberry pie, etc.) massage, beautiful handsome men (or for you, maybe, beautiful women), dogs, squirrels... — Bitter Crank
The decision is entirely up to the living. Pointing out that a child might well live a worthwhile life is not to speak on behalf of that child — Sapientia
and that is what you're robbing them of, so to speak. (And don't take that too literally — Sapientia
That those who so desire can pursue the goal of experiencing worthwhile things without procreating is utterly beside the point — Sapientia
if it is simply true that life is worthwhile — Sapientia
t might also be worth noting, to all it may concern, that the point of my argument is more about validity than soundness. I was responding to the charge that my conclusion doesn't follow. — Sapientia
Yes, it's also forcing them to experience joy and many other things. — Sapientia
You must be very privileged if you think that all those things you describe comes without costs or with as much as you purport here. — schopenhauer1
None of the things you so poetically describe there actually come in the idealistic ways in which you convey them in your list (one suggested great moment after another) — schopenhauer1
For every person who has their ideal mate, there is a sad lonely person. — schopenhauer1
Intellectual discovery- I think most of us here value this. — schopenhauer1
Great sex- Well, besides sexually transmitted disease, this comes with the cost similar to love. Some people have a lot of it, some get none or very little. — schopenhauer1
No doubt, your greatest defense for all this is to probably say that the person not experiencing any of these things is just not trying hard enough or is simply not seeing the joy. — schopenhauer1
None not all, the things I described always come in [as you say] the 'ideal' package. Surely not. Once in a while somethings might come achieve the 'ideal'. But every experience doesn't have to be ideal or great. Sex and love are not peak experiences every time (that would undermine the very idea of peak experiences). But it the case that is either perfection or horror. There are a lot of pleasant gradations in sex and love after perfection and before one gets to the bad experiences. — Bitter Crank
Maybe. Have you done a census and determined that the world is 50% perfectly mated and 50% sad and lonely? — Bitter Crank
Right, and you don't have to discover the next previously unknown sub-atomic particle or previously unseen star. Most (all?) of the territory 99% of us discover, somebody else has already lived on. Remember when you "discovered" Schopenhauer? I imagine that was a pretty good day for you. — Bitter Crank
Do STDs cause suffering? You bet. I've had STDs. Most men who were or are out there playing the field (especially before AIDS and condoms) got STDs. Ditto for women. People considered STDs a tolerable risk for having sex long before the discovery of penicillin. (I'm all in favor of individuals and institutions observing public health precautions, however. Recklessly spreading disease is a decidedly unfriendly action.) — Bitter Crank
There are no guarantees that one will get sex. Wanting sex, and not being able to find a partner, is an unhappy experience. In parts of the world where parents have skewed the birth rate in favor males, a lot of men are without partners -- just not enough women to go around. There are solutions to the problem, but don't hold your breath. — Bitter Crank
I've had gone for years without sex. When I was a young gay guy in rural Minnesota (way before Stonewall) finding suitable sex partners was a problem I didn't solve until I got the hell out of the rural midwest. Was I unhappy and miserable between the age of puberty and 26? No. One finds alternate means. — Bitter Crank
Ok, so we agree, you cannot think your way into happiness...No, happiness can't be forced. Happiness in this world is certain not automatic, but I don't think strenuous efforts can be counted on to produce happiness, either. — Bitter Crank
"Happiness" is not a state of the world, it's a condition of individuals, and we have some control over how they feel. — Bitter Crank
"If only I was less defective in the whole outlook department and in my actions, my life would be better somehow". It is a fact that it is a non-ideal world. It is a conceit to think that you can think yourself into an ideal world. Yes, the world was not meant for our particular versions of an ideal world, we adjust and survive in it however we can. Perhaps we can find better ways to adjust. Perhaps we can find better ways to concentrate on a task so as not to think of life as a whole. Perhaps we try to run more smoothly on the surface. Perhaps we can find better coping mechanisms. This does not mean that it is good, just because we can adjust to non-ideal circumstances. — schopenhauer1
If you and the other fatalists cum antinatalists can describe everything as inevitably leading to a shit pile, I don't see why I can't describe the same things as at least possibly leading to a rose garden--just no promises. — Bitter Crank
What I don't understand is the argument that there is some necessary and fundamental flaw in the world that makes it impossible to justify bringing in new life. So I'd like to ask a different question. In what fundamental ways would this world have to change in order to justify natalism (in the sense that it is morally permitted, though not required to have children)? — Sinderion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.