Adult Material (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform): — schopenhauer1

catenaries ... pwhooooaar?

(very predictable, I know)

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic — schopenhauer1

Well, that's because it usually is a juvenile inquiry :-O

Instead, the fully functioning adult is too immersed in the details of the world. The more detail regarding a particular matter (whether at work or entertainment), means the the less likely "larger" existential questions arise. — schopenhauer1

The focus on specialization has to do with the effects of industrialization and maximising the efficiency of individual workers. That's why everyone has to do a fixed thing repeatedly. So obviously all work ends up being very detailed, and not broad ranged.

Working out the exact 'recipe', or proportions of each ingredient is a science in itself. It is called concrete mix design. A good mix designer will start with the properties that are desired in the mix, then take many factors into account, and work out a detailed mix design. A site engineer will often order a different type of mix for a different purpose. For example, if he is casting a thin concrete wall in a hard-to-reach area, he will ask for a mix that is more flowable than stiff. This will allow the liquid concrete to flow by gravity into every corner of the formwork. For most construction applications, however, a standard mix is used.

​Common examples of standard mixes are M20, M30, M40 concrete, where the number refers to the strength of the concrete in n/mm2 or newtons per square millimeter. Therefore M30 concrete will have a compressive strength of 30 n/mm2. A standard mix may also specify the maximum aggregate size. Aggregates are the stone chips used in concrete. If an engineer specifies M30 / 20 concrete, he wants M30 concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 20mm. He does NOT want concrete with a strength of between 20-30 n/mm2, which is a common misinterpretation in some parts of the world.

So the structure is actually a connected frame of members, each of which are firmly connected to each other. In engineering parlance, these connections are called moment connections, which means that the two members are firmly connected to each other. There are other types of connections, including hinged connections, which are used in steel structures, but concrete frame structures have moment connections in 99.9% of cases. This frame becomes very strong, and must resist the various loads that act on a building during its life.

These loads include:
Dead Loads: the downwards force on the building coming from the weight of the building itself, including the structural elements, walls, facades, and the like.
Live Loads: the downwards force on the building coming from the expected weight of the occupants and their possessions, including furniture, books, and so on. Normally these loads are specified in building codes and structural engineers must design buildings to carry these or greater loads. These loads will vary with the use of the space, for example, whether it is residential, office, industrial to name a few. It is common for codes to require live loads for residential to be a minimum of about 200 kg/m2, offices to be 250 kg/m2, and industrial to be 1000 kg/m2, which is the same as 1T/m2. These live loads are sometimes called imposed loads.
Dynamic Loads: these occur commonly in bridges and similar infrastructure, and are the loads created by traffic, including braking and accelerating loads.
Wind Loads: This is a very important design factor, especially for tall buildings, or buildings with large surface area. Buildings are designed not to resist the everyday wind conditions, but extreme conditions that may occur once every 100 years or so. These are called design windspeeds, and are specified in building codes. A building can commonly be required to resist a wind force of 150 kg/m2, which can be a very significant force when multiplied by the surface area of the building.
etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

Wow, feels like I'm back in university! :D

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. — schopenhauer1

Juvenile in the sense of a tyrant who holds to the power to destroy folks in genocidal acts of war or commit political blunders with grave consequences?

The first sentence in your OP evoked other tough adult problems: tragedy of the commons (ex.climate change and antibiotic resistance) and abortion. These problems tend to make adults resemble juveniles (ie. selfish) from an ideal point of view and solution..

You're permitted to dismiss anything at any time. You can't be forced to do anything you don't want to.

This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration — schopenhauer1

And if they claim to have good reasons for believing that it is, what then?

How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair? — schopenhauer1

How are we to know that they're not?

It could be a useful meme that has effectively shifted people's questions away from existence itself so that they forget it as a topic of legitimacy and focus on details so that society can keep on moving forward without leading to feelings of angst. — schopenhauer1

Or it could not be. Making these apparently rhetorical statements doesn't relieve you of the burden of having to justify them.

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic — schopenhauer1

I'm uncertain how the existence of future people can be continued. The existence of people now living, though, may be discontinued through the use concrete, e.g. through the use of the legendary "concrete shoes" of old gangster fame. The Romans, by the way, developed concrete which hardens even while under water.

Population control wouldn't be a juvenile topic, I beleive, but I don't think that entails acceptance of the view that reproduction, in itself, is in all cases immoral.

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration. — schopenhauer1

What if many people occasionally do earnestly wrestle with the question of whether life is worth living? Cleary suicide occurs, and this is presumably the manifestation of an answer to that question in the negative. At least they do not consider their own lives worth living. The question of whether we should reproduce is clearly related to whether life is good on the whole.

Most of us think so, at least given a minimum of health and resources. Many of us are thoughtful types who have not always thought so. In our teens and 20s perhaps we weren't sure the ecstasy was worth the horror. Note that this is also the time where the individual tends to find a place in the economy. S/he has to acquire and prove some marketable capability. "We" filthy life-affirmers can frame the youthful excesses of existential angst as the pain of a second weaning -- of learning to live without the breast-milk of some authoritative justification of life. Hence "juvenile." Or we may frame such excess or life-negativity in terms of an erotic frigidity. Allured by life's voluptuous charms enough to ignore her yellow or even red teeth, it's hard not see a rejection of her in terms of a lack of lust. Is the anti-natalist fully switched-on?

The life-affirmer can hardly help interpreting the crisis of the anti-natalist except in terms of a personal problem projected outward. This need to project anti-natalism outward is itself an attachment to the drama of life. The anti-natalist needs the world as a stage on which to perform his rejection of the world. Of course Schopenhauer lived to a ripe old age with his prostitutes and his books. He slept by a pair of pistols, ready to kill anyone trying to snatch his precious life or property away from him.

How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair? It could be a useful meme that has effectively shifted people's questions away from existence itself so that they forget it as a topic of legitimacy and focus on details so that society can keep on moving forward without leading to feelings of angst. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like conspiracy theory. Who is this society character? Also, when has information ever been freer? Look at what Netflix has to offer. We swim in the contemplation of suicide and murder. Our art is "Shakespearean." It's just not plausible that some "center" is preventing authentic contemplation of existence. Where are these dullards who have never contemplated whether life is worth living? You may find some conservatives with a God narrative, but that's not even the rule anymore. "Society" keeps moving forward because most humans individually decide that the game is worth the candle. The anti-natalist can call them shallow or irrational and they can understand anti-natalism as squeamishness, erotic frigidity, etc., or, in general, as a personal problem/decision vainly projected outward as a universal truth. But then anti-natalism is one voice among so many others condemning life as guilty, ugly, sinful. Both sides can talk about rational justifications, but it's more plausible that some gut-level decisions or just semi-fixed emotional tonalities are involved.

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. — schopenhauer1

Any proposal for such an enquiry would fail because an answer is not determinable. The reality seems to be, that despite the fact that many, many people experience existential angst, most of those wish to continue to live, Perhaps this fact is the only possible criterion for judgement as to life's worth; if so, then the answer must be in the affirmative. Really, though, it is a matter for each individual. If you don't want children that is fine, and no one is going to attempt to force you to procreate.

This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration. These are things that youth ask who are not initiated into society's "real" problems. Thus, anyone who retains this line of questioning must never have progressed beyond this stage of their life- or so the implication is supposed to be. Instead, the fully functioning adult is too immersed in the details of the world. The more detail regarding a particular matter (whether at work or entertainment), means the the less likely "larger" existential questions arise.

This sounds a little paranoid. Of course people will focus on 'life matters'; survival, education, vocation, love, family, friendship, creativity, spirituality. If any of these are neglected by an individual then the individual will be impoverished in that area of life. There is no 'calculus' for the worth of life; each person is a unique 'barometer'; it really comes down to individual affect.

Well, that's because it usually is a juvenile inquiry :-O — Agustino

Say you. Nah nah nah pooh pooh

The focus on specialization has to do with the effects of industrialization and maximising the efficiency of individual workers. That's why everyone has to do a fixed thing repeatedly. So obviously all work ends up being very detailed, and not broad ranged. — Agustino

True.

Juvenile in the sense of a tyrant who holds to the power to destroy folks in genocidal acts of war or commit political blunders with grave consequences? — Nils Loc

This is (admittedly) about antinatalism (not procreating future people).

And if they claim to have good reasons for believing that it is, what then? — Thorongil

So are you saying it is? What's your claim that it is or is not?

How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair?
— schopenhauer1

How are we to know that they're not? — Thorongil

Abductive reasoning? Does it effectively change the subject? Does it prevent people from asking difficult questions? Perhaps this was picked up as effective in disarming the question?

Or it could not be. Making these apparently rhetorical statements doesn't relieve you of the burden of having to justify them. — Thorongil

See above.

I'm uncertain how the existence of future people can be continued. — Ciceronianus the White

A specific person may not be identified, but the counterfactual of not procreating is no future person will exist where there could have been. Not sure why you think this is an abuse of language to think in future tenses and potential consequences from actions. Too literal perhaps?

Population control wouldn't be a juvenile topic, I beleive, but I don't think that entails acceptance of the view that reproduction, in itself, is in all cases immoral. — Ciceronianus the White

Immoral is a loaded term. Parents aren't nefarious people like cold-blooded killers or sociopaths. Generally, I liken it to vegans who don't force their opinion but are not afraid to voice it and make a case for their side.

The question of whether we should reproduce is clearly related to whether life is good on the whole. — t0m

Agreed

"We" filthy life-affirmers can frame the youthful excesses of existential angst as the pain of a second weaning -- of learning to live without the breast-milk of some authoritative justification of life. Hence "juvenile." Or we may frame such excess or life-negativity in terms of an erotic frigidity. Allured by life's voluptuous charms enough to ignore her yellow or even red teeth, it's hard not see a rejection of her in terms of a lack of lust. Is the anti-natalist fully switched-on? — t0m

Not quite sure what you mean by "switched-on". I agree that that age group may be the most existential, but that may be for circumstantial reasons. Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints.

The anti-natalist needs the world as a stage on which to perform his rejection of the world. Of course Schopenhauer lived to a ripe old age with his prostitutes and his books. He slept by a pair of pistols, ready to kill anyone trying to snatch his precious life or property away from him. — t0m

But what is wrong with this? I don't see the contradiction in living life yet rejecting the premises of life itself. Indeed, life is presented to humans as it is already structured, and people can evaluate and analyze the structure and their place in it. If that is "needing the world as a stage", again, what is wrong with that? Suicide is not the only answer to existential questioning.

Where are these dullards who have never contemplated whether life is worth living? You may find some conservatives with a God narrative, but that's not even the rule anymore. "Society" keeps moving forward because most humans individually decide that the game is worth the candle. — t0m

I never said anyone was dullards, just that some people disarm others by throwing the term "juvenile" around to dissuade them from the line of questioning. I am not so sure about individuals "deciding" that the came is worth the candle. Many go through the motions without deciding anything.

The anti-natalist can call them shallow or irrational and they can understand anti-natalism as squeamishness, erotic frigidity, etc., or, in general, as a personal problem/decision vainly projected outward as a universal truth. But then anti-natalism is one voice among so many others condemning life as guilty, ugly, sinful. Both sides can talk about rational justifications, but it's more plausible that some gut-level decisions or just semi-fixed emotional tonalities are involved. — t0m

The point is to grapple with it and keep it at the forefront of thought continually. I think the generic "wisdom" is to think about it for a bit and move on, but it is the core of the issue as our very motivations are the core of what we do, think, plan, etc. Survival/boredom, and absurdity are all wrapped in our very existence as self-reflecting beings.

If you don't want children that is fine, and no one is going to attempt to force you to procreate. — Janus

Perhaps unlike other antinatalists, I don't see antinatalism as simply just refraining from procreating or even advocating it for others, but as a response to the existential conditions of survival/boredom/discomfort/angst at the root of our motivations and contingent suffering of circumstances. It is simply a jumping off point for an aesthetic picture, not simply an ethical credo.

There is no 'calculus' for the worth of life; each person is a unique 'barometer'; it really comes down to individual affect. — Janus

But when the very act of doing anything is related to being in the first place rather than intra-wordly affairs of specific goals and questions is the larger issue going on.

It is simply a jumping off point for an aesthetic picture, not simply an ethical credo. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but like all "aesthetic pictures" it is subjective, and there are no resources within it with which to form an argument that could be compelling in an intersubjective context.

But when the very act of doing anything is related to being in the first place rather than intra-wordly affairs of specific goals and questions is the larger issue going on. — schopenhauer1

Can you explain a bit more; it's not clear to me what you're trying to say here.

So are you saying it is? What's your claim that it is or is not? — schopenhauer1

Don't shift this onto me! This is precisely what I was asking you!

Sure, but like all "aesthetic pictures" it is subjective, and there are no resources within it with which to form an argument that could be compelling in an intersubjective context. — Janus

Sure there is, but I am not bringing it up on this thread because I literally have dozens on this topic where I do just that. If you want, I can reference them for you. The evaluation of life itself can be debated like any other aesthetic or ethical value. It is all debatable, some are more specific (e.g. should I do this specific act) than others (how is existence itself evaluated).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1800/ever-vigilant-existence#Item_142

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1701/uncanny-absurdity#Item_5

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1550/forcing-people-into-obligations-by-procreating-them-is-wrong#Item_106

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1437/life-is-a-pain-in-the-ass#Item_84

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1495/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-really-inauthentic-decisions-and-the-like#Item_85

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1361/is-it-a-tragedy-if-no-new-person-experiences-the-goods-of-life#Item_22

Can you explain a bit more; it's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. — Janus

All issues are wrapped up in existential ones of what the hell we are doing here in the first place.

Don't shift this onto me! This is precisely what I was asking you! — Thorongil

Abductive reasoning? Does it effectively change the subject? Does it prevent people from asking difficult questions? Perhaps this was picked up as effective in disarming the question?

As I said earlier: Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints.

Say you. Nah nah nah pooh pooh — schopenhauer1

>:) Of course.

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. This is meant to disparage the inquirer by making them think that their question is not worthy for serious consideration. These are things that youth ask who are not initiated into society's "real" problems. Thus, anyone who retains this line of questioning must never have progressed beyond this stage of their life- or so the implication is supposed to be. Instead, the fully functioning adult is too immersed in the details of the world. The more detail regarding a particular matter (whether at work or entertainment), means the the less likely "larger" existential questions arise. — schopenhauer1

I don't think anyone has a problem in you making a personal decision to not have any kids. Where the problem arises and where people tend to question your motive is when you show that you believe that you should have the right to stop everyone from having kids because YOU think live isn't worth living, or is a sham. For others, life is worth living and worth bringing in others to share it. Whose to say that you are right and they are wrong and that you get to determine their choices in having kids or not? Doesn't it really come down to the kind of life each individual lives with some having more suffering than others, and where some individuals are incapable of coping with reality? There is no objective rule or law that says life really is or isn't worth living. It is up to the individual. So I don't see a point in continuing this conversation, or why you keep bringing it up. If you have made that decision, then good for you. It is obvious that others disagree.

How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair? It could be a useful meme that has effectively shifted people's questions away from existence itself so that they forget it as a topic of legitimacy and focus on details so that society can keep on moving forward without leading to feelings of angst. — schopenhauer1

That is what I have found religion to be, not working at my job.

No, it's not so much the question that's juvenile. It's the attitude or thoght process associated with reaching a negative conclusion. Is it juvenile to angrily exclaim, "I didn't ask to be born!", when being scolded by a parent? I've seen that here disguised as something more sophisticated.

As I said earlier: Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints. — schopenhauer1

I consider aspects of religious belief to be juvenile, as well. I mean, come on. An imaginary father figure to look out for you and forgive your wrongdoings? A paradise for those who behave themselves and punishment for those who do not?

For others, life is worth living and worth bringing in others to share it. Whose to say that you are right and they are wrong and that you get to determine their choices in having kids or not? Doesn't it really come down to the kind of life each individual lives with some having more suffering than others, and where some individuals are incapable of coping with reality? There is no objective rule or law that says life really is or isn't worth living. It is up to the individual. So I don't see a point in continuing this conversation, or why you keep bringing it up. If you have made that decision, then good for you. It is obvious that others disagree. — Harry Hindu

So the same can be said about arguments on the limits of ethics- abortion, eating animals or animal by-products, assisted suicide, etc. These are things which are also argued about, but somehow are considered legitimate topics of consideration, why would procreation not also be in this category of a legitimate moral argument as the other things mentioned? Why is this one off limits but others not? Again, this is another way to shut down any thought on it before it enters the world of debate to begin with.

No, it's not so much the question that's juvenile. It's the attitude or thoght process associated with reaching a negative conclusion. Is it juvenile to angrily exclaim, "I didn't ask to be born!", when being scolded by a parent? I've seen that here disguised as something more sophisticated. — Sapientia

Well, this is not an "in the moment" exclamation because somebody didn't let me do something I wanted to. That would be juvenile in a sense, but the topic of why we continue to exist and allowing for serious consideration of why we bring future people into the world, is actually a very relevant and serious topic. Indeed, why we do what we do everyday, how we often shut off our self-reflective capabilities because of routine and habit, and how we limit the sphere of discourse to what seems to be acceptable in "polite" civil society keeps us from the foundational questions of existential questioning.

Spreadsheets, concrete load values, the ATP cell cycle, revenue cycles, financial statements, and the like are considered adult because it is involved with secondary goals related to survival in a very roundabout way (advanced, industrial, economic system and specialization), but they are intra-worldly events. The very foundation is what we doing in the first place, should be explored. Well, if survival and finding ways to not be bored are the root of it, we have to explore that. If you do not think that is what we are doing, and pleasure-seeking, learning, relationships, self-actualization, flow activities are involved we have to explore that too.

Well, this is not an "in the moment" exclamation because somebody didn't let me do something I wanted to. That would be juvenile in a sense, but the topic of why we continue to exist and allowing for serious consideration of why we bring future people into the world, is actually a very relevant and serious topic. — schopenhauer1

I was aware that it was not an exact comparison, but it is similar in essence. Like I said, in an environment such as this, with people such as yourself, it can be made to appear more sophisticated than its juvenile precursor. If I recall correctly, we were both in a particularly lengthy discussion on this very topic, namely that we do not consent to being born.

I'm not arguing against serious consideration of the topic. It is after serious consideration that I reached the conclusion that it has something in common with an attitude or thought process that is characteristically juvenile.

A specific person may not be identified, but the counterfactual of not procreating is no future person will exist where there could have been. Not sure why you think this is an abuse of language to think in future tenses and potential consequences from actions. Too literal perhaps? — schopenhauer1

Well, I think people must exist. There are no people who don't exist. There are no people who don't exist whose existence may or may not continue. One can say that people will exist sometime in the future, but that's not to say they're people now. One can also say that people should not exist in the future, I suppose, but that's to say that people living now should die now, or that there should not be any people in the future, which would be to say that not only should all people die, but that nobody should have children before they die.

Well written, thoughtful, and responsive to S1.

He will just respond by saying that creating human life and continuing to live once alive are separate issues. He will say that suicide is difficult to perform because we're hardwired for living and even immoral because it causes suffering for friends and family.

He will just respond by saying that creating human life and continuing to live once alive are separate issues. He will say that suicide is difficult to perform because we're hardwired for living and even immoral because it causes suffering for friends and family. — Thorongil

Yes, but in that case he'll at least be referring to people, and evaluating their conduct or experience. He won't be purporting to say something regarding...nothing. There will be no nonexistent people who have rights, or whose consent should be obtained, or who shouldn't be treated in a certain way, or would be or somehow are victims, or who will suffer due to the acts or omissions of people who exist. Nonexistent people don't require protection from people who exist.

It would seem to me to that what is being claimed (once the nonexistent people are out of the picture) is that people shouldn't have children, ever. Of course, that statement will require justification, and I wonder what that justification would be. Would it be--because if people have children, there will be more people? Why, though, would that be a bad thing--something which shouldn't take place? Because it's a bad thing to be a person? I don't know.

Why is this one off limits but others not? Again, this is another way to shut down any thought on it before it enters the world of debate to begin with. — schopenhauer1

It's clearly not off limits. We're discussing it here and now, while Benatar and others have published books and articles on it in the academy. My concern is that you seem to think that anyone who has bothered to think about this topic must come to the same conclusion as you have.

As you know, I've cooled on anti-natalism, so if my responses are perceived to be of a similar temperature, it's mostly because I don't like the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication that I and others who come to a different conclusion haven't seriously thought about the topic.

It would seem to me to that what is being claimed (once the nonexistent people are out of the picture) is that people shouldn't have children, ever. Of course, that statement will require justification — Ciceronianus the White

Correct. There are actually several arguments in favor of anti-natalism, and I would classify them into three categories: those from hedonic asymmetry, those from consent, and those from misanthropy. I myself no longer think these arguments work, which is why I'm no longer an anti-natalist.

Would it be--because if people have children, there will be more people? Why, though, would that be a bad thing--something which shouldn't take place? Because it's a bad thing to be a person? I don't know. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, according to one argument, it's because there will be more pain and suffering. We therefore have a duty not to procreate to prevent this needless pain and suffering. The underlying premise here is that negative utilitarianism is true.

This is (admittedly) about antinatalism (not procreating future people). — schopenhauer1

Here’re some premises and the resulting conclusions. Where would this go wrong?

P1: Antinatalists hold their stance due to a desire for there to not be suffering in the world.

P2: Some people in the world desire for there not to be so much suffering in the world while others couldn’t give a hoot about other’s suffering.

P3: If all people who desire reduced suffering in the world (including antinatalists) were to no longer exist, then the world would become fully populated by people that increase suffering in the world—this either due to lack of care or due to willful intent.

C1: In order to best bring about the effect which antinatalists seek, people who seek this same effect have to populate the world—and, thereby, at times reproduce—in order to optimally counteract the effects of people who bring about increased suffering in the world.

C2: Though it is in the interest of minimized global suffering that all newly birthed children are wanted (thereby entailing that if potential parents don’t want to be parents then it is good for them not to be parents—regardless of reasons), given the premises listed: the greater the quantity of reproduction by people who seek minimizing suffering in the world, the more the world’s overall suffering becomes minimized via the counteracting of those who produce increased world suffering.

Edit: I know I'm missing some details in terms of logics; still, how does this stand as an overall argument?

Whenever someone brings up the idea of questioning whether existence itself should be continued for future people, a common response is that it is a juvenile topic. — schopenhauer1

I don't recall every saying or thinking it was a juvenile topic. It does however feel terribly restrictive; every philosophical question loops back into anti-natalism, for the anti-natalist. This seems a trap of the anti-natalist's own making, that means all the detail of anyone else's obsession about anything else will look dull by comparison. Each of the 'adult' details you quote derives from an accumulation of human knowledge, developed in cooperation, to solve problems and just for the sake of the satisfying curiosity. So some people are obsessed by concrete, some by maths. Is that so terrible? I'm interested in all that, in what other people do and how other people are. Aren't you? Anti-natalism seems uninterested in other people, it just seems to want to tell the majority of other people that in one fundamental respect they are mistaken in how they value life, procreation and sexual pleasure: it feels more of a lecture than an analysis. Surely if you want to spread the word, you need to enquire a little more into how other people are? That's certainly how politics is done, for instance: tramping round streets, knocking on doors, listening to people's concerns, explaining your views to them.

It's clearly not off limits. We're discussing it here and now, while Benatar and others have published books and articles on it in the academy. My concern is that you seem to think that anyone who has bothered to think about this topic must come to the same conclusion as you have.

As you know, I've cooled on anti-natalism, so if my responses are perceived to be of a similar temperature, it's mostly because I don't like the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication that I and others who come to a different conclusion haven't seriously thought about the topic. — Thorongil

For once, we agree, and in an unexpected context.

All issues are wrapped up in existential ones of what the hell we are doing here in the first place. — schopenhauer1

I am well familiar with all the kinds of arguments you cited from other threads. the problem is, none of them are compelling to anyone who doesn't empathize with your feeling about life.

I agree with your statement as quoted above; and the fact that we can't "know what the hell we are doing here in the first place", in the kind of shareable discursive sense you are demanding, is the very fact that makes the value of life incalculable in any intersubjective unbiased way.

Edit: I know I'm missing some details in terms of logics; still, how does this stand as an overall argument? — javra

Well, let's see:

P3: If all people who desire reduced suffering in the world (including antinatalists) were to no longer exist, then the world would become fully populated by people that increase suffering in the world—this either due to lack of care or due to willful intent. — javra

This is a bit suspect to me for several reasons. 1) You are assuming future people will reduce suffering in the same way as the parents. Offspring may be nothing like their parents. 2) Using future people in order to decrease some overall suffering seems to not be in the spirit of the moral stance to not use people for a means to an ends. You create a life with suffering in order to reduce some total suffering.