Basically, I wouldn't say being an optimist or pessimist dictates you have to hold a single, static attitude toward literally every single aspect of life and existence. Does it? — Outlander

I'm using the definition of Philosophical Pessimism which means that life has an inherent suffering or negative aspect to it. Further, that these aspects are not worth bringing more people into it. It is not the common notion of something like "half is glass empty". It should also not be confused with misanthropy which says that humans are inherently corrupt. Though they are often seen together, they are not always the same. By contrast, I suppose, is a sort of optimism, though the term isn't used as much in a philosophical sense, probably cause its the default, is that there is something inherently good or possibly could be good about living that would be worth the human enterprise and bringing more people into it.

In this respect, I would argue that your most extreme pessimism and antinatalist stance represents an extreme example of a wish for control, with absolute lack of any creativity and scope for freedom of the human spirit. — Jack Cummins

Its not a wish for control. I am not forcing the stance, for the umpteenth time. It is up to the parents to decide to not have the child. Decide is the key word. And that requires a certain point of view. It is I am arguing a political view. One that says living is good, and it is good to make the decision on another's behalf to be begetted into life. The other is that life is not worth living and it is would be better not to be begetted. It is also the best decision not to make that on behalf of another person.

But you are trying to enforce the position by coming up with endless reasons for your antinatalist stance.

It is a personal decision whether or not people bring people into the world and you are constantly coming up with reasons against it, and ultimately this indicates that the matter is your problem.

Who cares about what you believe about your concerns about suffering, as none of your posts convey any empathy regarding suffering or any compassion. The appeals to emotion which you make are shallow in this respect.

But you are trying to enforce the position by coming up with endless reasons for your antinatalist stance. — Jack Cummins

Maybe our definitions of force are different, but arguing for a position and enforcing something are two very different things and a misuse of language for emotional appeal in argumentation.

It is a personal decision whether or not people bring people into the world — Jack Cummins

Actually it is not. It is affecting another person's life, not just your own. Granted, I agree it is a decision that only one can make on one's own. Other people can have a strong stance on the decision though.

who cares about what you believe about your concerns about suffering, as none of your posts convey any empathy regarding suffering or any compassion whatsoever. — Jack Cummins

Um, the whole point of not procreating is to prevent suffering. The world is full of it. The question is, is it okay to continue it. You clearly have an opinion on the matter. You cannot stand on the sidelines.

You make your case as if it is benefiting others, while in an actual fact it benefits no one, including yourself. What you have said is empty rhetoric, playing with the appeal to emotions, but not in any genuine sense . As such, I am afraid that it does not deal with the problem of of suffering at all.

It is a personal decision whether or not people bring people into the world and you are constantly coming up with reasons against it, and ultimately this indicates that the matter is your problem. — Jack Cummins

You make your case as if it is benefiting others, while in an actual fact it benefits no one, including yourself. What you have said is empty rhetoric, playing with the idea that emotions, but not in any real sense at all. As such, I am afraid that it does not deal with the problem of of suffering in any real, genuine way. — Jack Cummins

It is benefitting others. Just not in the ways you find valid. So be it. It is about an evaluation of life, and the forced ideology when procreating someone else.

I am afraid I don't see the point in discussions the matter with you further, because you are completely fixed in your belief. But I am left wondering what you have to gain in your argument. Is it the attention your posts create? But, I would rather move on because from my point of view, you use and abuse the idea of suffering in a meaningless way.

idea of suffering in a meaningless way. — Jack Cummins

With no explanation why, youre just saying meaningless things yourself. I've argued my point plenty. Just because you say something, doesnt make it true. Its just rhetoric.

I am not trying to be harsh with you, but I am not convinced that you even understand the basics of suffering at all.

You make some thought provoking points but I am skeptical that people don't procreate to prevent suffering. In certain cases yes, but it seems most people don't procreate because they want time for themselves or they dislike children. I'm also not sure if this is a matter of politics, but moral disagreement instead. I also don't think one has to be an optimist to consider having children. I know you're trying to separate philosophical pessimism from "glass half empty pessimism" but I and other people I've met seem to have a neutral view on life and still had kids (I don't have kids).

As I've stated before, the very act of bringing someone into existence is a political act. — schopenhauer1

Would antinatalism, as a practice, therefore be considered a boycott? Or perhaps a political protest?

Would antinatalism, as a practice, therefore be considered a boycott? Or perhaps a political protest? — Inyenzi

Yes both. Good analogies.

I'm using the definition of Philosophical Pessimism which means that life has an inherent suffering or negative aspect to it. — schopenhauer1

I consider myself an optimist, but that doesn't mean I deny reality and insist there is no suffering. The position is that through suffering much is gained and that the wisdom and accomplishment you gain through struggle are the things of most value to you. The optimism lies in the fact that there is a higher level you will be elevated to as the result of the struggle. That is not to say there aren't things that have occurred that have caused more suffering and evil than they've created good, but an optimist would still be inclined to find the good in what had occurred.

You seem to be isolating your inquiry to whether one should decide to have children or not, which I really don't see central to this inquiry. I would agree that an optimist would likely not be an anti-natalist, but I don't think there is anything inconsistent with an optimist choosing not to have children for any number of reasons.

Yes, I think you are correct to see that the whole problem of suffering is not merely about whether to have children or not. I think that this post and the whole question of pessimism and optimism could have been a fantastic area of discussion if the focus was not simply about whether or not one should procreate.

I've talked with schopenhauer1 about this topic a bit, and I think his position is more accurately categorized as one that is anti-being than anti-suffering. I remember I asked schopenhauer if he'd still be a pessimist even if the world was basically perfect, and he said that he would be. Even in a perfect world you'd have to deal with the deaths of your grandparents or parents - otherwise you're the tragedy. If life inevitably involves some tragedy, which it always will to some degree or another, then according to schopenhauer we should do away with it. Even if the vast majority of one's life is amazing, no one can consent pre-birth to being born into a world where tragedy inevitably lives.

For the record I don't agree with schop. I just wanted to sketch out the position here.

I am aware of the antinatalist stance of Schopenhauer 1. I just think that he wrote a good thread discussion and it could have been better if the discussion could have been more expansive.
I believe that suffering is at the heart of human existence but even if you are an antinatalist that does not mean you can only discuss suffering, as well as the pessimist/political divide in view to your conclusion. The actual subject of pessimism and optimism in politics is worthy of discussion as a topic in itself.

I consider myself an optimist, but that doesn't mean I deny reality and insist there is no suffering. The position is that through suffering much is gained and that the wisdom and accomplishment you gain through struggle are the things of most value to you. The optimism lies in the fact that there is a higher level you will be elevated to as the result of the struggle. That is not to say there aren't things that have occurred that have caused more suffering and evil than they've created good, but an optimist would still be inclined to find the good in what had occurred. — Hanover

Yes, this is a perfect example of the common Nietzschean narrative optimists tell each other. In a world where suffering is inescapable, the only way to make it okay is to co-opt suffering as "good", "necessary for meaning" and the like. It is a predictable move. However, creating known and unknown burdens to overcome, what I call "dealing with situations" for another person, and letting this continue is wrong. If I throw you into a pit with obstacles I know you must overcome and then say, "You'll appreciate the suffering later", that is wrong. Now broaden that to the necessary situations of overcoming survival, comfort, and entertainment needs in a cultural milieu (socio-economic setting). Now add in the contingent sufferings of all the harms that befall someone. These are just more dealing with situations. No amount of post-facto rationalizing of the "good" of suffering mitigates actually creating conditions for the suffering that do not have to take place.

Then the conversation turns to humanity as a whole rather than the individual. This will end humanity! Cries the optimist. And? What of the human enterprise besides your thought-projection of accomplishments and future endeavors matters to itself? In other words, its an abstract thing, not a real person with identity. It is the individual who suffers, not an abstract concept. It is the person who deals with, not humanity. Individuals shouldn't be created so you can shed a sentimental tear at the greatness of human achievement and all the other romantic waxing.

You seem to be isolating your inquiry to whether one should decide to have children or not, which I really don't see central to this inquiry. I would agree that an optimist would likely not be an anti-natalist, but I don't think there is anything inconsistent with an optimist choosing not to have children for any number of reasons. — Hanover

Optimists don't have to have children themselves. They just have to think that it is worth it for people to be born in a world with suffering, as you seem to hold yourself.

The industrialists being those perpetual optimists — schopenhauer1

Wow! Not what I had in mind. I look at the industrialists and their descendants as utterly pessimistic. "This is the best we can do and it's important, even if we wreck the world doing so." They perceive it as important because we can do it and there is no difficulty in doing so. Much, much more difficult is seeing beyond the obvious to perceive the real situation, which is not at all as it seems.

They perceive it as important because we can do it and there is no difficulty in doing so. Much, much more difficult is seeing beyond the obvious to perceive the real situation, which is not at all as it seems. — Whickwithy

But they in a way are optimists in their devotion to the technology, capital investments, and economic system. They call it "good".

I've talked with schopenhauer1 about this topic a bit, and I think his position is more accurately categorized as one that is anti-being than anti-suffering. I remember I asked schopenhauer if he'd still be a pessimist even if the world was basically perfect, and he said that he would be. Even in a perfect world you'd have to deal with the deaths of your grandparents or parents - otherwise you're the tragedy. If life inevitably involves some tragedy, which it always will to some degree or another, then according to schopenhauer we should do away with it. Even if the vast majority of one's life is amazing, no one can consent pre-birth to being born into a world where tragedy inevitably lives.

For the record I don't agree with schop. I just wanted to sketch out the position here. — BitconnectCarlos

Fair enough. I will add that a world that is complete or nothing would be akin to perfection. This is getting a bit Platonic and Buddhist but if we take as a template Schopenhauer's idea of striving Will, it represents an incompletion in our needs and wants. Thus, a complete or nothing existence would be the opposite. My guess is, this is akin to his idea of the saint's Enlightenment, Nirvana, Moksha, or the like. It is some state of being/non-being.

I've also stated that perhaps another version of a utopian-world would be being able to dial in as much pain as one wants. Of course that doesn't exist. The reality is we live in a variable world of varying amounts of pain, both known and unknown. Recently, my argument has emphasized that it is wrong to make others have to overcome burdens. Certainly, it is wrong to make them overcome burdens and then to poor salt on the wound say, "But you see, it is good for you to experience the hardship so you have a more meaningful life". Yes, I know that is the traditional narrative, but is wrong in that if it is known, then it is simply creating a negative situation in order for people to overcome it for someone else. If it is unknown then it is a post-facto rationalization of why the person had to deal with the pain in the first place. Either way, preventing people from having to live a life of dealing with one thing after the next is the right thing to do. There IS an ideology behind having children. It is promoting the idea that we want people to deal with situations. Just because people don't commit suicide at all times, doesn't mean it is thus right to go ahead and put people in the dealing with situations.

Yes, this is a perfect example of the common Nietzschean narrative optimists tell each other. In a world where suffering is inescapable, the only way to make it okay is to co-opt suffering as "good", "necessary for meaning" and the like. It is a predictable move. — schopenhauer1

I took the OP as a probably accurate observation that there is a significant divide between optimists and pessimists. Why the two see the world distinctly is an interesting question, likely involving personal history, psychology, and religious beliefs. There are also pragmatic issues to look at, as in who makes for the happier, more successful, and more fulfilled person. The responses to all of those questions seem to favor the optimist.

I take your response to my post as an unrelated discussion as to whether optimism or pessimism is more philosophically sound, as if you're intent is to try to persuade me of the wisdom of pessimism. You will no doubt fail in your effort to make me more pessimistic, and, in fact, my laboring through your arguments will only convince me of your folly and will make me more convinced an optimistic outlook is best. That is to say your pessimism will only make me and the rest of the world a better place, as it will inform all who may stumble upon you of the misery that befalls the pessimist and they will therefore adopt a more optimistic outlook.

That is to say your pessimism will only make me and the rest of the world a better place, as it will inform all who may stumble upon you of the misery that befalls the pessimist and they will therefore adopt a more optimistic outlook. — Hanover

:100:

I am 100% a more optimistic person since engaging with Schop and pessimistic philosophy.

I am 100% a more optimistic person since engaging with Schop and pessimistic philosophy. — BitconnectCarlos

And so you see, there is good in everything, even in those who insist there is good in nothing.

I think the general idea on the Nietzschean parent is something like: “life is valuable and I desire a parent-child relationship; though their lives may be filled with hardship and struggle, I will guide my child and help them any way I can. They are likely to enjoy their lives, but I will aid them in a journey to establish meaningful and productive lives through their hardship.”

Because Schopenhauer1 supports a non aggression idea for ethics, it’s pretty clear why this wouldn’t be okay. Nobody needed to come into existence, but some would-be parents have a strong interest in procreating and I don’t think it’s clear that just because something didn’t have to be it’s always impermissible. I don’t think this idea renders procreation 100% impermissible for those who don’t support a non-aggression pact

I think the general idea on the Nietzschean parent is something like: “life is valuable and I desire a parent-child relationship; though their lives may be filled with hardship and struggle, I will guide my child and help them any way I can. They are likely to enjoy their lives, but I will aid them in a journey to establish meaningful and productive lives through their hardship.” — Albero

Yes that is a good summary of the standard Nietzschean parent stance.

Because Schopenhauer1 supports a non aggression idea for ethics, it’s pretty clear why this wouldn’t be okay. Nobody needed to come into existence, but some would-be parents have a strong interest in procreating and I don’t think it’s clear that just because something didn’t have to be it’s always impermissible. I don’t think this idea renders procreation 100% impermissible for those who don’t support a non-aggression pact — Albero

Sure, if the don't believe the reasoning, then they wouldn't follow it. But the point is to go back to the reasoning and see it as sound. Creating situations of harm, negative states, deprivations for someone else, so that they can POSSIBLY feel the benefits of overcoming those very hardships, and even if just to purely benefit (in other words, maybe not to just overcome hardships to gain more meaning in life, but to simply enjoy things), is still wrong, because indeed, you are making negatives, hardships, deprivations for someone else in the first place. It is hubris to think that you are doing something grand on someone else's behalf by creating a situation of negative states for them. It is post-facto reasoning to then say, "Well, these negative states can provide meaning". I mean, yes anyone can rationalize anything at that point. Without X bad thing, this good thing wouldn't come about.

The paternalistic idea that YOU have a notion that life is good, therefore other people should live through life is hubristic in many ways. At the least, can you admit that this should be questioned? Just because you can do it, should you?

I think there is an illusion that if a society is one with sufficient choices, people can't complain that life is an imposition on someone else. But if anything, my constant theme is that life really isn't as free as we think. We have necessary forms of suffering and contingent harms that befall everyone. This is all well known.

Interesting points, these really gauged my thoughts. It's definitely something that ought to be questioned, 100% agreed. I don't blame others for not being interested in bio-ethics, but people really are willy-nilly when it comes to having children.

This isn't really on the topic, but as an antinatalist how do you feel about nature/animal rights groups who wish to re-populate animals to help with biodiversity or revive extinct animals or something. Some antinatalists think abstaining from procreation ought to apply to all life. Your arguments seem to be more deontological and human-centric, so I was wondering your thoughts on the matter.

This isn't really on the topic, but as an antinatalist how do you feel about nature/animal rights groups who wish to re-populate animals to help with biodiversity or revive extinct animals or something. Some antinatalists think abstaining from procreation ought to apply to all life. Your arguments seem to be more deontological and human-centric, so I was wondering your thoughts on the matter. — Albero

Yeah I would say I'm more in line with the human-centric. Suffering takes on different characteristics in our distinct species, involving linguistically-adapted minds, high levels of deliberation, self-awareness and the like.