Whatever merit that argument has in pointing out what is in each of our control or not, it has no room to distinguish different ways to be a parent or promote institutions that build up those new people. Standing outside of those concerns is its own kind of irresponsibility. If the most important matter becomes proving that all reproduction is ultimately guilty of inflicting risk to future generations, it cannot be important that one family nourishes what another spoils or that education builds up or breaks down persons.

And those issues are what is important to those who bring new people into the world. — Valentinus

But who says promoting these institutions is even ethical? It is forcing a way of life on a person and then hoping that enculturation will make people "appreciate" these was of life thus forced.

Also, if it is past the debate about birth, then this is circular logic as the person is bypassing the very debate antinatalism is about, thus presuming exactly a position antinatalism is trying to debate in the first place.

As the OP states, there's a raging pandemic going on causing mass suffering. How does that not cause pause? But even the more mundane wanting to see someone play the game of life, is ultimately just playing a game of hot potato. Now a new person has to deal with life. Deal with all the things. All the things. All the things. All the things. All the things. All the things. All the things.

No pain will ensue. No dealing with overcoming will ensue. So you don't get to see someone have to deal with overcoming and maneuvering the institutions of a certain way of life.. So what? Why is that moral to want that for someone else?

If I even gave you one instance of overcoming something you really didn't want to deal with, it wouldn't be justified for me to do. If I give you a whole life time of known and unknown dealing withs.. everything from traffic to deadly pandemics. .That certainly isn't justified on someone else's behalf.

What are morals and ethics outside of the circumstances you object to?
My responses may be circular in the way you describe. But you are calling for the end of human beings. Should that be ultimately decided by those human beings agreeing to a moral code where the cessation is required?
How is that less authoritarian than whatever you oppose?

Should that be ultimately decided by those human beings agreeing to a moral code where the cessation is required? — Valentinus

But it's not forced. I never said it should be a view forced on people. Thus, they are not "deciding it". It's up to people's own individual decision. I don't advocate for such a controversial position to be law. Same as abortion, veganism, etc. etc.

How is that less authoritarian than whatever you oppose? — Valentinus

For reasons explained above. It seems more authoritarian though to want to see people maneuver through life's institutions and believe that you have the "magic formula" to make this gamble a worth it for someone else.

Agreement to a code can be forced or not. I understand that your argument is an appeal to voluntary acceptance of a condition or truth about a condition.

But the idea of responsibility is based upon what people should do or not. It is authoritative by default, for better and worse.

I understand that your argument is an appeal to voluntary acceptance of a condition or truth about a condition. — Valentinus

That's what matters.

But the idea of responsibility is based upon what people should do or not. It is authoritative by default, for better and worse. — Valentinus

Ok, but I am not sure what you are getting at. If people looked to the authority of antinatalism, then that is what they do. You cannot say that antinatalists are dictating things though. Rather, people who agree with antinatalism are making decisions to not affect another person.

If this moral imperative is accepted as necessary, there can only be two groups. One calls for the suicide of the species while the other does not. The only people who would consider the argument take the work of parenting seriously. If the only people taking responsibility for reproduction do not reproduce, the only people having children will be those who decline to agree with the principle.

Without the power to change behavior, the whole idea is a dream.

you seem to be saying that utopia will never be achieved in the future because it has not already been achieved — Alvin Capello

Actually, no. I am saying that utopia will never be achieved because Utopia is unachievable. The concept of utopia is different for each person, therefore, since there are, roughly, 8 billion versions of it, to establish a state in which everyone is experiencing utopia is, in essence impossible. If we consider Utopia to simply be a lack of suffering and strife, then death, or a very drugged state could be considered as having achieved a utopian state. However, as my version of utopia, or heaven, if you will, is far different than the version espoused by my fellow man, or mentioned in any of the religious books I have read, or heard tell of. It has not happened yet, en masse, because it cannot. I believe it has happened individually, and there it will remain, an individual achievement.

Without the power to change behavior, the whole idea is a dream. — Valentinus

Indeed.