So if nobody else will get it, then what's the point of making arguments for it? — Pneumenon

I wasn't always an antinatalist.

It's trivially true that humans need to be born for art to continue beyond the current generation. That is part of what I was getting at. But I did not impy, or at least did not intend to imply, that humans ought to be born for that purpose, or for that purpose alone. Art is just one of the many things that can make life worthwhile. Not just bearable or tolerable or as a relief, but worthwhile. — Sapientia

Good, I'm glad you acknowledge this. But there is a difference between life being worthwhile once alive and creating more of it just so those creatures can experience worthwhile things. The latter is not at all necessary.

You talk in an objective, matter-of-fact manner, which is quite misleading. — Sapientia

So you would prefer that I not try to speak as objectively and matter-of-factly? What a revealing demand, one to which I refuse to comply. I value objectivity, facts, and truth and make no apologies for it. I could be, possibly am, and certainly have been wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean I will stop telling what I take to be the truth or state what are the facts of the matter. Let's please not descend into some insufferable relativism here.

I grant you all of this. I'm just killing time on an Internet forum.

Fun, even though pointless, isn't it?

At times.

I can't always be around to make everyone's day. :D

From an anti-natalist point of view this is just confusing. The position makes its case against life precisely by avoiding such comparisons. For the anti-natalist, suffering is so bad any comparison with the worthwhile is incorhent. It cannot be paid for or mitigated by good experiences. Responsiblity to avoid new instances or life is argued on the basis suffering is a state which must be avoided, in terms of itself alone. The moment one tries to compare suffering with the worthwhile, they've missed the point anti-natalist is making about suffering and its place in life.

Actually my life took a turn for a worse, and I found refuge in Schopenhauer and the fellow pessimists. It wasn't a horrible catastrophe but it was enough to shake up my world view and make me realize just how ignorant I was of the human condition.

Mediocrity is not "good enough". — darthbarracuda

1. The 'mediocrity' point is arguable. Life just simply ain't mediocre for everyone all the time. For some notable and renowned people, in particular, it hardly seems appropriate to say that they lived, or live, a mediocre life. But these things are relative and context-dependent, and not everyone will evaluate these things identically.

2. Good enough for who? It'd be pretty arrogant to consider yourself the arbiter of of what is and isn't good enough for the whole of humanity. We're not exactly talking about slavery or torture here; just mediocrity. I think it's sensible to realise and accept that life entails some amount of mediocrity, but that mixed in with the mediocrity are the more remarkable times, including those of value - sometimes great value - which can make life worth living. I mentioned earlier that I've been skydiving. If you judge even that to be mediocre, then your judgement is evidently skewed and discordant. There comes a point where you should very seriously consider whether it's not that you have some special insight that most others just can't or won't acknowledge, but rather that you're looking at things upside down or through a glass darkly.

Every one of us is in the condition that a sufficient amount of pain can befall us that leads us to question our existence. — darthbarracuda

Yes, and I have done so in those circumstances more times than I wish to remember. Those were not good times. That can be symptomatic of an unhealthy state of mind. I am glad that I made it through some of the hardships that I've lived through.

Does the mere possibility mean that we should give up? No, certainly not, I say. That's a rubbish reason stemming from a defeatist mindset.

Mediocrity is statistic, really. If it's average to own a private jet, an eighty room house and eat the greatest delicacies in the world, then that's a mediocre life. If it's normal to live in a city filled with human waste, eating spoiled food then having a fresh apple is pretty exceptional.

Don't compare your life to others, and want more than most people have. Maybe most people are getting too much as it is.

All of the mediocrity and suffering can be avoided by birth. To say otherwise is like to eat a piece of burnt toast and then force everyone else to eat a piece as well.

You're so spoiled... back in the day, bread was already cooked, they didn't need a fancy future second cooking.

Not for those already born. They're stuck with their lives no matter how much anyone says no one else ought to be born.

The direction this discussion has taken doesn't make sense. The question of the worth of the lives of the already living is a different question to that of whether new life ought to be created. If you are already born, then the only questions are how you've been cooked (and sometimes burnt) and how you will be cooked (and sometimes burnt) in the future. Only the suffering of future lives can be prevented by eliminating new births. For the suffering of the living, it holds no consequence or solution. It says nothing about whether already living is worthwhile or not.

Good, I'm glad you acknowledge this. But there is a difference between life being worthwhile once alive and creating more of it just so those creatures can experience worthwhile things. The latter is not at all necessary. — Thorongil

Not necessary, but it can be worthwhile. By having a child, one is granting them the opportunity to experience worthwhile things. And, given that most people, throughout multiple generations, would say that they are glad to be alive, and that they do not regret being born, there is reason to believe that the yet-to-be-born stand a good chance of reaping the rewards and arriving at the same conclusion.

So you would prefer that I not try to speak as objectively and matter-of-factly? What a revealing demand, one to which I refuse to comply. I value objectivity, facts, and truth and make no apologies for it. I could be, possibly am, and certainly have been wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean I will stop telling what I take to be the truth or state what are the facts of the matter. Let's please not descend into some insufferable relativism here. — Thorongil

I didn't demand anything of you. You're free to speak in that way, and I'm free to call you out when it's misleading.

Yeh yeh, and all of the great and wonderful things, too. It sure gets boring and tiresome when someone keeps pointing out that the glass is half empty. It's funny, the occasional burnt toast doesn't cause people to stop liking toast altogether. They like toast, their children like toast, their children's children like toast...

Isn't the natalist, not the antinatalist, deciding for everyone how good life has to be in a sweeping generalization in order for it to be forced on people separate from them? The antinatalist literally decides nothing for anyone.

And, given that most people, throughout multiple generations, would say that they are glad to be alive, and that they do not regret being born, there is reason to believe that the yet-to-be-born stand a good chance of reaping the rewards and arriving at the same conclusion. — Sapientia

How many people would have to not want to be born in order for it to be not a good idea to reproduce and possibly create such a person. Suppose to start it was 100%. Then would there be a problem, in your view?

No, as I said, it's merely a matter of probability. If a more significant number of people bemoaned their existence all the time, and not just occasionally and then got over it... then it would be a more pressing concern, but really I doubt most people even consider the possibility, it's so minute.

You know, I'm not even confident that Schop was totally serious about all of that, rather than just using poorly translated Buddhist ideas to be edgy, and controversial.

So the suffering people experience in the world by virtue of being born is not a problem? Everyone is just whining and will get over it? I'm trying to understand your position.

People don't suffer by virtue of being born, and there certainly are circumstances and environments which cause excessive, enduring suffering which needs addressing and mitigating -- but just having everyone die, or stop being born to fix the problem is like pulling out all of your teeth to prevent cavities.

Everyone suffers hardships, and feels terrible, maybe like dying, but yet, they then get over it. Nothing wrong with whining, and being at low points in life. I wouldn't attempting to lessen, or dismiss anyone's suffering, I was merely describing the fact that most people do feel those ways at times, but yeah, get over it.

People don't suffer by virtue of being born — Wosret

Sure they do. It is not possible to be born and not suffer. Therefore, they suffer by virtue of being born.

Everyone suffers hardships, and feels terrible, maybe like dying, but yet, they then get over it. Nothing wrong with whining, and being at low points in life. I wouldn't attempting to lessen, or dismiss anyone's suffering, I was merely describing the fact that most people do feel those ways at times, but yeah, get over it. — Wosret

Everyone gets over everything in the end, because they die. I don't see how that makes the intermediate suffering worth going through or perpetuating.

No, one doesn't suffer because of being born, it isn't possible to suffer without being born, and it may not be possible to be born and not suffer -- but this still doesn't mean that birth itself causes suffering. Other stuff causes suffering, you know that.

People don't get over things because they die, lol. See, you have to just believe that everyone really hates life, and wants to die, regardless of what they say, and how they act. You just have to ignore that, and think they're lying or delusional. You're a True Believer.

No one says "I wish I was never born" because they just can't get over how horrible birth was, but because of this thing that is now happening that their life led up to.

No, one doesn't suffer because of being born, it isn't possible to suffer without being born, and it may not be possible to be born and not suffer -- but this still doesn't mean that birth itself causes suffering. — Wosret

Yes it does -- that is quite literally what it means.

No one says "I wish I was never born" because they just can't get over how horrible birth was, but because of this thing that is now happening that their life led up to. — Wosret

And the cause of that thing was their birth.

Oh, I see, now that you've asserted it over and over again, it's becoming clearer.

The only way I can make sense of your assertion is by assuming you don't know what the word 'cause' means.

You're just using "cause" in a strained way. Like saying the big bang is the cause of suffering.

But it is. How is that a strained use? That's the regular use of the word. As in, it would be false to deny that.

In a unless, like metaphysical sense perhaps, but it doesn't talk about the real causes. It is in a strained sense true to say that my parents meeting caused my car accident, but in the normal sense people would say running that red light caused it, or being drunk caused it, or more immediate relevant things, and not the second dinosaur from the left sneezing that one time 70 million years ago.

Isn't the natalist, not the antinatalist, deciding for everyone how good life has to be in a sweeping generalization in order for it to be forced on people separate from them? The antinatalist literally decides nothing for anyone. — The Great Whatever

That last sentence is false. They both make the mistake of deciding the worth of the life of everyone, and everyone yet to be, rather than recognising that people have some say in the matter. They are both guilty of a sweeping generalisation.

How many people would have to not want to be born in order for it to be not a good idea to reproduce and possibly create such a person. Suppose to start it was 100%. Then would there be a problem, in your view? — The Great Whatever

Not if you're including passing moments and phases. If we all strongly and consistently wanted never to have been born, then that would change things, yes.