An appeal to the majority proves nothing in terms of the truth of an ethical doctrine. — darthbarracuda

If you're suggesting that I've committed a fallacious appeal to the majority, then you're mistaken. What I was getting at is that the testimony of all of those people does not count for nothing. It's circumstantial evidence, and evidence of a very large scale. So, you aren't justified to simply dismiss it, and, given that the counter-evidence against this circumstantial evidence that yourself and others have mentioned is insufficient to justify the rejection of all - or even most - of these testimonies, then your argument fails.

We do not have a crystal ball, and this means that we ought not to mess around with things that affect other people. This doesn't mean we get to just do whatever the hell we want. This is exactly why engineers follow safety protocol when building things, so the damage is minimized. In the case of birth, damage is minimized by not giving birth to anything, and while this may lead to the "loss" of pleasurable moments, the minimization of severe pain is more important, since there really is no loss at all and those who are suffering immensely don't give a shit about the supposed pleasures of life. — darthbarracuda

There are always risks, even when health and safety protocols are followed to the letter. But we build buildings nonetheless, and this is no travesty. You, on the other hand, want to shut down the building project altogether, regardless. Bye bye, buildings. Bye bye, humanity.

It's hypocritical of you to say that we shouldn't mess around with things that affect other people, when you're arguing in favour of the artificial early extinction of humanity. If we leave things be, then, all things being equal, they'll naturally continue as they have done for hundreds of years, in at least that we'll carrying on having children, and those people and children will be virtually unaffected by the actions of antinatalists. So, yes, leave things be. But you obviously see this as a big problem.

Damage is not minimized by not giving birth to anyone. Extinction is one of the most damaging things that can happen to humanity.

Also, you don't argue in favour of minimising pain at all in the case of antinatalism. You may well contend that minimising pain is generally a good thing for the living, and I'd be inclined to agree, but that isn't really antinatalism. No, rather, when it comes antinatalism, you argue in favour of eradicating pain altogether - and everything else in life - through extinction, and that is not a good thing for every single human that is alive or ever will be. In other words, it's not good for humanity.

And as for those who are suffering immensely, it's not as if nothing can be done about that. They were born: that can't be changed. But it's pointless, counterproductive and immature to fixate on that.

If there was a society filled with 99 happy people and 1 miserable person, we would be concerned about the 1 miserable person. The 99 happy people would be rather unimportant once we saw the misery the 1 person was going through. How much happiness will make up for the Holocaust, or for the day-to-day misery of the animals being eaten alive? — darthbarracuda

Ignoratio elenchi. The conclusion is that we should care enough to reduce or prevent suffering in many cases, but it doesn't follow that we should apply that reasoning indiscriminately or without limitation. No, we shouldn't do so at any cost because humanity matters. Even if no amount of happiness will justify or make up for the holocaust, it's irrational to somehow leap to the conclusion that we should therefore bring about our own extinction. If you really care about the lives of animals, and if you're strongly against eating them for ethical reasons, then do something sensible about it. Become an activist if you aren't already. But don't pretend that extinction is the answer. If you said that in the company of serious political activists, you'd quickly become a laughing stock or get lambasted or both, and rightly so.

The whole point here is that since you cannot predict how a life will turn out, and that life itself is filled with unfortunate circumstances, accidents, and general suffering, and that there is indeed a chance that something severe will befall the born, that having a child is not a rational nor moral thing to do. — darthbarracuda

Obviously I don't agree, although I'm not simply arguing the opposite.

When it comes to a judgement of birth, I tend to be passive and view it as something that is just a product of human emotions and ignorance. But nevertheless I do not view birth as something to be cherished. — darthbarracuda

Good for you?

If you're suggesting that I've committed a fallacious appeal to the majority, then you're mistaken. What I was getting at is that the testimony of all of those people does not count for nothing. It's circumstantial evidence, and evidence of a very large scale. So, you aren't justified to simply dismiss it, and, given that the counter-evidence against this circumstantial evidence that yourself and others have mentioned is insufficient to justify the rejection of all - or even most - of these testimonies, then your argument fails. — Sapientia

I am justified in dismissing it when it can be shown that people's own opinions of their lives are biased by rose-tinted glasses, hard-wired optimism and a pollyanna disposition.

Damage is not minimized by not giving birth to anyone. Extinction is one of the most damaging things that can happen to humanity. — Sapientia

There is very little redeeming features of the human race that I feel are worthy of consideration.

If you mean simply that there are countless means and ends in life, and that once one ends, another inevitably arises, then yes, that is true. But I don't think that that's a problem in itself. You have to smuggle in a certain viewpoint, such as your own, for it to be problematic. — Sapientia

Not really. I doubt most people of a certain age have not felt this feeling of ennui about life. It might take some longer than others, or certain experiences to get to this realization. We are highly self-aware creatures (compared to others on this planet), and have the capacity for self-reflection. This is amplified with the extra time afforded by advanced civilizations. However, I do not doubt, most people find plenty of ways to shut this feeling out. This speaks to the psychological mechanisms of isolation, anchoring, distraction, and sublimation. It is simply about how much we want to let in these thoughts. I agree, however, that some temperaments do not allow for shutting these thoughts out as much as others.

Isolation is the first method Zapffe noted, who defined it as "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling" and cites "One should not think, it is just confusing" as an example.[1]
Anchoring, according to Zapffe, is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness". The anchoring mechanism provides individuals a value or an ideal that allows them to focus their attentions in a consistent manner. Zapffe compared this mechanism to Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen's concept of the life-lie from the play The Wild Duck, where the family has achieved a tolerable modus vivendi by ignoring the skeletons and by permitting each member to live in a dreamworld of his own. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society, and stated "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future" are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments. He noted flaws in the principle's ability to properly address the human condition, and warned against the despair provoked resulting from discovering one's anchoring mechanism was false. Another shortcoming of anchoring is conflict between contradicting anchoring mechanisms, which Zapffe posits will bring one to destructive nihilism.[1]
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions."[1] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. — Wikipedia article on Zapffe's The Last Messiah

However, there is no doubt that this is the situation we are in. We are striving beings that go about from one end to another without any real resolution to our striving. Why the individual striving person needs to be created in the first place, makes no sense. Happiness, overcoming challenges, experiencing perseverance, does not make (what I take to be) any coherent sense in creating for another being in the first place. Giving another being experiences does not seem to make sense in light of the fact that

a) most experiences are not ideal and are tinged with slight discomfort to outright torture and everything in between b) most people experience maintenance of working/surviving/making a living, clearing their environments for future use, resting, etc. that really do not seem to have much deeper meaning than subsisting c) ideals such as "science", "discoveries", "knowledge" and "beauty" are not experiences unto themselves but are embodied in individuals who have many mixed emotions, pains, and otherwise and are thus not perfect nuggets of things that come out of life. Beauty in and of itself means nothing. We are also not vessels so beauty can be carried out. We are not vessels so that knowledge can be obtained. Rather, beauty is something that is nice to have since we are already born. Knowledge is nice to obtain once we are born. However, we do not live for these things- they are simply contingent to living.

The hard position: At the end of the day, why provoke all this chaos and striving? Undoubtedly, you will inadvertently or purposefully point to something similar to one of those concepts I mentioned in c. And yet again, I will point to the fact that no one needs the strife of life to experience any of those ideals if the alternative is to not even be born to be deprived of anything.

The soft position: Even granting that life itself should be lived for its pleasant experiences, or for some concept (i.e. overcoming challenges). This does not play out in the same optimal ways for everyone. You can have someone who does find beauty, love, and knowledge, someone who finds none of these things, or someone who finds these in much lesser or varying degrees. Not all experiences are as optimal as others. I am not even including the extreme cases of people with severe mental or physical disabilities or the cases of someone who lives life in the "normal" range of ability but becomes severely disabled as a result of some event or tragedy.

Either position should lead one to, at the least, question whether it is good to put someone in the position of these experiences in the first place.

In other words, what Schopenhauer1 is saying is that the good in the world, the aesthetics, the sciences, the friendships, victories, reliefs, and pleasures are second-order and are structurally dependent upon a striving Will and the propensity to suffer. The question is whether or not the second-order flowers make up for the roots of striving and suffering.

When the flowers are not only contingent but also quick to pass, while the roots are necessary and permanent (until death), it makes one wonder if this is all worth it.

Shakespeare said it best with his To be, or not to be soliloquy in Hamlet.

I am justified in dismissing it when it can be shown that people's own opinions of their lives are biased by rose-tinted glasses, hard-wired optimism and a pollyanna disposition. — darthbarracuda

Then please go ahead and do so, or link to a post in which you think you've done so.

But remember that for your argument to be strong enough to stand a chance of succeeding, you'd have to show that that is true of all people (or perhaps a large majority of people) every time they make a judgement of their lives; not just that it is true sometimes for some people in some situations. And, furthermore, for your evidence to support your argument enough to reject contrary positions, it would have to be both credible (Is it scientific? Does it come from an authoritative source? Is there a consensus? Does it stand up to scrutiny?) and not cherry picked (selectively picking evidence and ignoring or suppressing counter-evidence, e.g. judgements being biased in a contrary manner, by shit-tinted glasses, pessimism, depression, etc.).

I am quite confident that you will fail to meet all of the necessary conditions.

There are very few redeeming features of the human race that I feel are worthy of consideration. — darthbarracuda

Okay. That you feel that way is irrelevant, though. Most people feel otherwise. The human race matters to most of the human race. This is much better reason to judge it as being worthy of continuance than the tiny minority who feel otherwise. Your feelings don't get special authority over the rest of the human race.

Not really. — schopenhauer1

Then, again, you're not talking about instrumentality, but rather, judging by the rest of your post and by other posts of yours, a particular emotional reaction to it. For example, you mention ennui, which, according to Google, is a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement, and is synonymous with boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, and enervation.

Of course some people feel that way. Many people feel that way at times. So what? I don't feel like that right now, as it happens. This changes nothing. Neither pessimism nor antinatalism has won the day on that account, because of course that alone is insufficient, and because, in any case, other people feel otherwise, and many people feel otherwise at times.

Disclaimer: there might be more to your argument than that, but your post is pretty long and there's much to address.

We are striving beings that go about from one end to another without any real resolution to our striving. — schopenhauer1

Striving is part of life, yes. You can't rid yourself of it unless you kill yourself, which isn't something that I advise. It's not something that you should want to rid yourself of. It's something that you should just accept as a part of life in at least a minimal form. If striving is bad, then strive for less or more realistic things. Simples.

Why the individual striving person needs to be created in the first place, makes no sense. — schopenhauer1

No, no. There is a difference between not being able to make sense of something and something not making any sense.

Then, again, you're not talking about instrumentality, but rather, judging by the rest of your post and by other posts of yours, a particular emotional reaction to it. For example, you mention ennui, which, according to Google, is a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement, and is synonymous with boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, and enervation.

Of course some people feel that way. Many people feel that way at times. So what? I don't feel like that right now, as it happens. This changes nothing. Neither pessimism nor antinatalism has won the day on that account, because of course that alone is insufficient, and because, in any case, other people feel otherwise, and many people feel otherwise at times. — Sapientia

So then, your conclusion is that some people will not be dissuaded by these mere emotions, and thus we should create new people? Despite the fact that some people indeed are dissuaded by these mere emotions, the main point was the following from the above:

a) most experiences are not ideal and are tinged with slight discomfort to outright torture and everything in between b) most people experience maintenance of working/surviving/making a living, clearing their environments for future use, resting, etc. that really do not seem to have much deeper meaning than subsisting c) ideals such as "science", "discoveries", "knowledge" and "beauty" are not experiences unto themselves but are embodied in individuals who have many mixed emotions, pains, and otherwise and are thus not perfect nuggets of things that come out of life. Beauty in and of itself means nothing. We are also not vessels so beauty can be carried out. We are not vessels so that knowledge can be obtained. Rather, beauty is something that is nice to have since we are already born. Knowledge is nice to obtain once we are born. However, we do not live for these things- they are simply contingent to living.

The hard position: At the end of the day, why provoke all this chaos and striving? Undoubtedly, you will inadvertently or purposefully point to something similar to one of those concepts I mentioned in c. And yet again, I will point to the fact that no one needs the strife of life to experience any of those ideals if the alternative is to not even be born to be deprived of anything.

The soft position: Even granting that life itself should be lived for its pleasant experiences, or for some concept (i.e. overcoming challenges). This does not play out in the same optimal ways for everyone. You can have someone who does find beauty, love, and knowledge, someone who finds none of these things, or someone who finds these in much lesser or varying degrees. Not all experiences are as optimal as others. I am not even including the extreme cases of people with severe mental or physical disabilities or the cases of someone who lives life in the "normal" range of ability but becomes severely disabled as a result of some event or tragedy.

Either position should lead one to, at the least, question whether it is good to put someone in the position of these experiences in the first place.

darthbarracuda

In other words, what Schopenhauer1 is saying is that the good in the world, the aesthetics, the sciences, the friendships, victories, reliefs, and pleasures are second-order and are structurally dependent upon a striving Will and the propensity to suffer. The question is whether or not the second-order flowers make up for the roots of striving and suffering.

When the flowers are not only contingent but also quick to pass, while the roots are necessary and permanent (until death), it makes one wonder if this is all worth it.

Shakespeare said it best with his To be, or not to be soliloquy in Hamlet. — darthbarracuda

summed up my long-winded arguments nicely.

So then, your conclusion is that some people will not be dissuaded by these mere emotions, and thus we should create new people? — schopenhauer1

No.

Firstly, it's not about whether some people will or won't be dissuaded. It's about whether they should or shouldn't be. But it's about more than just that. It would be good if people were dissuaded to live by those emotions if their lives weren't worth living, so my conclusion is about the latter issue, which goes deeper than - and underlies - the former; namely, the worth of life - which isn't universal, either in degree or kind, but relative. Some lives are worth living more than others, and some lives aren't worth living. It's not a matter of all or nothing.

Secondly, I'm not a natalist, and my view isn't so simplistic as to claim that we should create new people. Rather, I think that in some cases it's worth it. Hence, I think that it would, at the very least, be less than ideal if no other new people were created, and hence my rejection of antinatalism, which is also too simplistic in positing that it's not worth it. Again, it's not a matter of all or nothing.

a) most experiences are not ideal and are tinged with slight discomfort to outright torture and everything in between — schopenhauer1

The "most" part is arguable, but even if true, it's cherry picked and its significance exaggerated.

b) most people experience maintenance of working/surviving/making a living, clearing their environments for future use, resting, etc. that really do not seem to have much deeper meaning than subsisting — schopenhauer1

It only seems that way to some, and it seems otherwise to others.

c) ideals such as "science", "discoveries", "knowledge" and "beauty" are not experiences unto themselves but are embodied in individuals who have many mixed emotions, pains, and otherwise and are thus not perfect nuggets of things that come out of life. — schopenhauer1

Again, we see the undue focus on and emphasis of negativity, by, for example, choosing to mention pains rather than alternatives, like pleasures. Mixed emotions, as the term suggests, entails a mixture of both positive and negative emotions. I have never denied this, nor have I claimed or implied that part about "perfect nuggets", so that's a combination of preaching to the choir and attacking a straw man.

Beauty in and of itself means nothing. We are also not vessels so beauty can be carried out. We are not vessels so that knowledge can be obtained. Rather, beauty is something that is nice to have since we are already born. Knowledge is nice to obtain once we are born. — schopenhauer1

More preaching to the choir. Yes, these things have only relative value.

However, we do not live for these things - they are simply contingent to living. — schopenhauer1

No, some people will attest that they live for such things, and it's evident that some people have gone as far as to dedicate their lives to such things. You can't just sweep that under the rug or hand-wave it away. Well, you can, but that wouldn't be reasonable.

The hard position: At the end of the day, why provoke all this chaos and striving? Undoubtedly, you will inadvertently or purposefully point to something similar to one of those concepts I mentioned in c. And yet again, I will point to the fact that no one needs the strife of life to experience any of those ideals if the alternative is to not even be born to be deprived of anything. — schopenhauer1

Again with the exaggeration and appeals to emotion. Oh noes! Chaos, strife, pain, suffering, misery, deprivation, disaster! Yep, that's a fair way to sum up life.

I do believe I've already addressed the irrelevancy of this point about necessity. Bringing it up again won't make it any less irrelevant. Indeed, it's not necessary that anyone be born, but it's an option, and what is relevant is whether it's always a bad choice, or whether it can in fact turn out to have been worthwhile in at least some cases.

The soft position: Even granting that life itself should be lived for its pleasant experiences, or for some concept (i.e. overcoming challenges). This does not play out in the same optimal ways for everyone. You can have someone who does find beauty, love, and knowledge, someone who finds none of these things, or someone who finds these in much lesser or varying degrees. Not all experiences are as optimal as others. I am not even including the extreme cases of people with severe mental or physical disabilities or the cases of someone who lives life in the "normal" range of ability but becomes severely disabled as a result of some event or tragedy. — schopenhauer1

Granted. It's not like I've neglected to consider that. But it isn't enough to justify antinatalism.

Either position should lead one to, at the least, question whether it is good to put someone in the position of these experiences in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Question, yes. It's an important topic. And deciding whether or not to have a child is a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly (although even if it is, and a child is born as a result, that doesn't necessarily damn the child to a life not worth living). I doubt anyone here believes otherwise (excluding the part in brackets, which antinatalists might reject).

Then please go ahead and do so, or link to a post in which you think you've done so. — Sapientia

Pollyanna Principle

Hedonic Treadmill

Repression

Terror Management Theory

Rather, I think that in some cases it's worth it. — Sapientia

So, something as complex as a human life can be determined beforehand based on a few standards such as environment, and family the child is born into? This is too simplistic. Even if you gave me some statistical analysis, then it is a bit odd to treat a new life like a possible insurance liability being that one is a whole human life with all experiences and the other is about a specific kind of liability that occurs once one is already born.

Hence, I think that it would, at the very least, be less than ideal if no other new people were created, and hence my rejection of antinatalism, which is also too simplistic in positing that it's not worth it. Again, it's not a matter of all or nothing.

Why would it not be ideal? You sir, seem to smuggle the idea that life must be carried out for the sake of it. Or, replace the term "life" with "experience" "happiness" "knowledge", etc. etc... and you get the picture that I have been making over and over about not needing any x reason to experience anything in the first place. Also, no one NEEDS to be created simply because the people who already exist would mourn a future without people just as no one needs to exist to experience any particular thing. I'm not saying it is you, but many of this emphasis on continuance of human experience may stem from superstitions.. to deny what one craves (by default) by being born.. (like experiences, good experiences, etc.) seems to tempt bad things, death, and fate. Best not disturb the capricious gods that gave you your (so far) "good" experiences.. it must be fed with tribute, otherwise they will taketh away..

a) most experiences are not ideal and are tinged with slight discomfort to outright torture and everything in between
— schopenhauer1

The "most" part is arguable, but even if true, it's cherry picked and its significance exaggerated. — Sapientia

Really? Cherry-picked? I disagree. Again, slight discomforts to torture and anything in between covers enough for that to not be cherry-picked.

b) most people experience maintenance of working/surviving/making a living, clearing their environments for future use, resting, etc. that really do not seem to have much deeper meaning than subsisting
— schopenhauer1

It only seems that way to some, and it seems otherwise to others. — Sapientia

Really? So, doing tasks that one would not otherwise do for maintenance is not a common human experience? Hmm

c) ideals such as "science", "discoveries", "knowledge" and "beauty" are not experiences unto themselves but are embodied in individuals who have many mixed emotions, pains, and otherwise and are thus not perfect nuggets of things that come out of life.
— schopenhauer1

Again, we see the undue focus on and emphasis of negativity, by, for example, choosing to mention pains rather than alternatives, like pleasures. Mixed emotions, as the term suggests, entails a mixture of both positive and negative emotions. I have never denied this, nor have I claimed or implied that part about "perfect nuggets", so that's a combination of preaching to the choir and attacking a straw man. — Sapientia

But these peak experiences, including "happiness" seem to be a part of the idea that people must exist in the first place, when the alternative is not existing. However, the mixed nature of being an embodied human would make this seem to be a moot point, when we are discussing the idea of creating new people. People already born simply have to figure a way to deal with it. But to put a new person in a position to find a way to deal with these mixed experiences when the alternative is to not even have to deal with these experiences, seems to be overlooking this point. So no, not a strawman, just bringing up implications of the idea that we are creating lives that must "deal" with life.

No, some people will attest that they live for such things, and it's evident that some people have gone as far as to dedicate their lives to such things. You can't just sweep that under the rug or hand-wave it away. Well, you can, but that wouldn't be reasonable. — Sapientia

No, that was not the point though. Some people AFTER THE FACT of being born might dedicate their lives to such experiences, but they did not need to be born in order to have these experiences.

Again with the exaggeration and appeals to emotion. Oh noes! Chaos, strife, pain, suffering, misery, deprivation, disaster! Yep, that's a fair way to sum up life.

I do believe I've already addressed the irrelevancy of this point about necessity. Bringing it up again won't make it any less irrelevant. Indeed, it's not necessary that anyone be born, but it's an option, and what is relevant is whether it's always a bad choice, or whether it can in fact turn out to have been worthwhile in at least some cases. — Sapientia

Yes, it can be a bad choice for all situations because, no one needs to be put in a situation where they have to "deal" in the first place, even if it turns out that person learned to "deal" well, or in a lesser version, happened to be born in an environment to "deal" well or has to be a put in a situation where they just have to "deal" better.

You sir, seem to smuggle the idea that life must be carried out for the sake of it. — schopenhauer1

This. ugh :s

In a hypothetical future scenario, someone is born and experiences valuable things out of life. — Sapientia

Whoop-de-fucking-do. This isn't an argument about anything.

Whoop-de-fucking-do. This isn't an argument about anything. — Thorongil

Correct. It's part of one that you've taken out of context. Well fucking done.

So, something as complex as a human life can be determined beforehand based on a few standards such as environment, and family the child is born into? This is too simplistic. Even if you gave me some statistical analysis, then it is a bit odd to treat a new life like a possible insurance liability being that one is a whole human life with all experiences and the other is about a specific kind of liability that occurs once one is already born. — schopenhauer1

You're making some assumptions about my position that might constitute a misrepresentation of it. All I said was that I think that in some cases, it is worth it. This isn't because I think that we can determine beforehand whether or not someone will live a life worth living, but because many people have done so in the past, and many people do so presently, so we can reasonably infer that there is a certain likelihood that someone will live a worthwhile life. There are indeed certain factors which can effect this likelihood, but they can only tell us so much.

There is no 'safe option' or guarantee of success, but neither is failure an inevitability. You either take a shot at life or you adopt a defeatist attitude. I, like most people, think that the former is better in most cases. At least with the former, you stand a chance of success, and if things go amiss, you can back out. Whereas with the latter, you stand no chance of success, and you can't opt in.

Why would it not be ideal? — schopenhauer1

Isn't it obvious? Because then no one would live a worthwhile life, and it's obviously good to live a worthwhile life. Therefore, it cannot be ideal. If you accept the premise that extinction would rule out the possibility of living a worthwhile life, as I do, and as many other reasonable and intellectually honest people do, then you cannot argue that extinction is an ideal scenario. You can argue that it would be better than the alternative, but you can't argue that it would be ideal.

You sir, seem to smuggle the idea that life must be carried out for the sake of it. — schopenhauer1

Nice try, but nope, that's a straw man. I have never been of that position, and I even argued against it earlier.

TBC

This. ugh :s — darthbarracuda

Don't you remember my earlier comments rejecting precisely this notion that you brought up? I compared it to a production line in a factory. No, I certainly don't advocate this view, and I've in no way implied it, but whatever. Go ahead and read into my comments whatever you like. It's easier to attack a straw man than the real thing. And what makes this debate so much "fun" is that it's one against four, so not only do I have to explain myself once, but multiple times.

I miss the eye roll smiley.

Correct. It's part of one that you've taken out of context. Well fucking done. — Sapientia

So as of now, you still haven't argued that AN is false, nor that having children is justifiable. Well done.

so we can reasonably infer that there is a certain likelihood that someone will live a worthwhile life. There are indeed certain factors which can effect this likelihood, but they can only tell us so much. — Sapientia

Your mistake is tragic.. but my position does not even allow for a mistake. And a good life "missed"? Means nothing to no one.

Nice try, but nope, that's a straw man. I have never been of that position, and I even argued against it earlier. — Sapientia

Really? Because your quote right above it is not even smuggled but explicit:

Isn't it obvious? Because then no one would live a worthwhile life, and it's obviously good to live a worthwhile life. Therefore, it cannot be ideal. — Sapientia

Oh wait, you put "worthwhile" as a descriptor so that changes everything... Not really though. My point was that living involves dealing with things. You are not just creating worthwhile scenarios by having a new person, but a situation where that person must now, literally, deal with life. Why make someone deal with life in the first place? Worthwhile encounters are something after the fact. It is how we make due once born. Of course we are going to try to maximize good experiences. But does worthwhile need to be carried out by anyone in the first place? Why do worthwhile moments need to be experienced at all? What makes this a priority when we know that worthwhile also means mixed life experiences and the fact that humans are dealing and making due.

If you accept the premise that extinction would rule out the possibility of living a worthwhile life, as I do, and as many other reasonable and intellectually honest people do, then you cannot argue that extinction is an ideal scenario. You can argue that it would be better than the alternative, but you can't argue that it would be ideal.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the alternative, but extinction means nothing to no one. It would only affect the few people left at the end, and I guess you can say there could be mediation on this scenario, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The point is that it is not extinction that antinatalism cares about, just preventing future lives that will be forced to deal with life and suffer. Worthwhile experiences are not an end to themselves.

Your whole poorly constructed premise relies on two very flawed ideas. The first is the "self-reports" of the majority. Well, that just is not good enough. As Benatar, myself, and several people on this thread have shown- psychologically, the "dealing" with life is often misrepresented in the evaluator's mind due to cherry-picking worthwhile moments, and simply making due.

The other, and most egregious one, is smuggling in the idea that forcing someone to deal with life's problems, and facing life's sufferings can be overlooked because somehow, humans must perpetuate worthwhile moments..or what, the universe will shed a tear? Oh wait, I already explained this.. Why keep on having to rephrase what I have stated and you have not defended:

Also, no one NEEDS to be created simply because the people who already exist would mourn a future without people just as no one needs to exist to experience any particular thing. — schopenhauer1

So as of now, you still haven't argued that AN is false, nor that having children is justifiable. Well done. — Thorongil

What a remarkable display of wilful ignorance.

And a totally unremarkable red herring uttered by you.

Here's an easy yes or no question: Do you or do you not still stand by your original argument? And if you do, then explain why my objection is inapplicable.

And a totally unremarkable red herring uttered by you. — Thorongil

No, it's not a red herring at all. It's a fitting assessment. It's not in the least bit plausible that you could have overlooked my arguments against antinatalism and in favor of having children except via wilful ignorance.

Here's an easy yes or no question: Do you or do you not still stand by your original argument? And if you do, then explain why my objection is inapplicable. — Thorongil

Yes, I do stand by my argument, but no, that's not how this is gonna work. It's quid pro quo. If you're gonna play ball, then go back and try harder. Otherwise it ends here. All you did was quote me out of context and give a curt hand-wave - the latter of which is a modus operandi that TGW is notorious for, and you seem to have followed in his footsteps - and I called you out for it. I offer no deeper explanation than that for the time being.

Honestly, do you expect leniency and serious consideration when you reply to my post by just quoting a tiny part of it - a single sentence - and declaring "Whoop-de-fucking-do. This isn't an argument about anything"? On yer bike.

I'll take that as a no.

Thanks for the links, but that isn't doing what I said. You've not shown that they meet the conditions I spoke of. Do you expect me to do the work for you?

I just checked out the first link to a Wikipedia article on the Pollyanna principle (or positivity bias). This is merely a tendency, and the very same article mentions a counter tendency: a negativity bias. Also, many of the links to sources either link to nowhere or link to material which isn't freely available.

If you can use a positivity bias to dismiss opinion, then I can use a negativity bias to do likewise.

Look, I can post a bunch of links, too:

Negativity Bias

Our Brain's Negativity Bias

Are We Hardwired For Unhappiness?

Negative Biases and Risk for Depression

Memory Bias In Depression

Again, my links are only supplemental material. My position does not rise or fall solely on these psychological phenomenons.

Indeed, it doesn't. You can cherry pick and so can I, and this has got us nowhere fast.

You seemed to ignore my post altogether.

If you're referring to the fact that I haven't yet replied to your posts, then I'm sorry it seems that way. I was planning on getting around to it, although I chose to reply to some of the shorter posts first, because they require less time and effort.

Also, I do have a life outside of this forum. You can't guilt me into replying. It's my prerogative to decide whether or not to reply. I've spend a great deal of time in this thread as it is, and much of it seems like time spent unwisely. In case you haven't noticed, all of the other any anti-anti-natalists left long ago.

In case you haven't noticed, all of the other any anti-anti-natalists left long ago. — Sapientia

Who were they?

Sapientia, just because someone quotes you doesn't mean they're quoting you out of context. Most of your posts only have a couple words that are about anything, and the rest is padding.

If you don't remember, then I suggest you go back through the discussion.

I know what quoting out of context means, and I stand by my charge and its accompanying explanation.