I didn't say that one out loud. But, as you say, an event of conspicuous consumption but also plain and simply mindlessly showing off (sorry @T Clark, being arrogant here) is way too much for me and my expression made that clear. I think the most expensive item at my wedding will be the honeymoon, because, that is where the real celebration will be conducted, no? Me and IVF are buddies. She calls me Dr. Evil.

I think the problem is a a given to life, not that the problem has the option to be given. It is just there, given to everyone. — Intrigued

Indeed, suicide is not the same as never being born.

I enjoy solving problems, and the problem of finding goods is a crucial issue, It adds zest to my life, when I succeed it is fantastic, when I fail it's depressing, but I enjoy the striving.

Still working on the others. — Cavacava

What other choice do you really have? Embrace it or not. I still think that the problem itself does not have to be given in the first place.

I haven't finishing reading your post, but if you hadn't shown up pretty quick, I would have sent you a telegraph alerting you to the topic's bright, sunny, breezy existence needing your special seasoning insight. — Bitter Crank

I am glad to be the punching bag. Every silver lining's got a touch of grey.

Imagine if Stephen Hawking's parents known that their son would have a rare early-onset, slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and they practiced antinatalism, then we would not have one of the brightest minds of our generation — Cavacava

I don't really like this equivocating. No person should be used as a reason to carry out "X" principle, scientific or otherwise. Anyways, antinatalism is not eugenics. Far from it. Everyone deserves not to be born. It's an equal opportunity non-starter.

I didn't say that one out loud. But, as you say, an event of conspicuous consumption but also plain and simply mindlessly showing off (sorry T Clark, being arrogant here) is way too much for me and my expression made that clear. — TimeLine

I love the fact that you have set such high standards for yourself. I think you're the only person I've ever met who might be able to meet them. It's when you start applying the same standards to others that you run off the tracks. Ms. Smarty Pants.

But there is an ambiguity in our understanding of the sentiment. The first and broadly understood - i.e. the boo friggidy hoo my life is shit emotions - is only bad insofar as the individual does not actively engage in making those circumstances better and if they are able to articulate it, then they are able to improve it. I am not fond of this type of emotion, it is too static, defeatist and unchanging for my taste. — TimeLine

Again, no one needs to be born to overcome challenges, so this fails to address a main point.

Are you implying that love - and again, not that sentiment of a mushy romance but think of 'brotherly love' when I say it or the capacity to give love (emotion/compassion) - as a Will that drives us, are you suggesting the endeavour to reach happiness by regulating and correctly applying our emotions and by being passionate against injustice or bad things happening to others, that contains no 'purpose'? As you say: — TimeLine

Well, I didn't mention love at all, so I am not sure where this fits into my pessimism or antinatalism. I guess, if I was to pull out something, it is your use of "purpose" in connection with compassion. If my argument is that no one needs to be born to carry out any X reason. Then no, no one needs to be born to be given the problem of trying to overcome selfishness and show compassion for fellow man in the first place. In other words, though compassion should be something sought once born, it is not a reason to be born.

Humans don't need to be born at this stage; I openly told a woman at work who said that she spent $50,000 on IVF treatment that she was an idiot. We have more than enough children being born for the wrong reasons that need our attention (love, compassion, empathy, they are emotions that connect us) and why I myself do not wish to give birth but will (in the future) adopt a child. There is no 'black and white, strict, clear' reality here; IVF treatment and anti-natalism are two extremes and what we need is to apply ourselves with more humanity, compassion and knowledge that modifies our recalcitrant emotions and project it correctly to the external world, to direct the implicit and subjective experience to - as Searl said - direction of fit. — TimeLine

Although in theory I agree with the person not having kids, I think that your approach there perhaps lacked the compassion you dwell so much on. Don't get me wrong, I am an ardent antinatlist, but I am not a mean one. I liken it to vegans who may outline their position to those who will listen or in public forums, but are not overly condemning and understand that this currently is on the liminal aspects of ethics. Having a vegan shout at customers in the meat section of a grocery store, would be overly condemning and counter productive, for example.

Me and IVF are buddies. She calls me Dr. Evil. — TimeLine

Okay, that context made a bit of difference, so that makes a bit more sense.

I love the fact that you have set such high standards for yourself. I think you're the only person I've ever met who might be able to meet them. It's when you start applying the same standards to others that you run off the tracks. Ms. Smarty Pants. — T Clark

It does not make me wrong in thinking that something is wrong with people or a person where there is an absence of love. You cannot assume your opinion of my arrogance - which is true and I have no qualm being called as such - that somehow that becomes a justification for an erroneous view. The burden is on you to prove why and you have yet to do this. Focus.

It is wrong to spend $50,000 on a wedding, I can even go so far as to call that unethical. To spend $50,000 on IVF - psychologically, I may understand the underlying reasons and have sympathy for those reasons - but it is not justifiable ethically when there are thousands of children in need of care and adoption is available as an alternate. There is something about the concept of a child being 'mine' that I do not appreciate - it reminds me of the concept of the purity of "blood" that I am against - but I understand as a woman and perhaps from an evolutionary perspective vis-a-vis biology and maternal instinct; yet, the proportion of infanticide proves no real solidity in that argument. In addition, that money could be used to save thousands of women from preventable maternal deaths. Many people give birth to children for economic reasons, which returns back to my argument that I gave to Schopenhauer; our brains develop through love, contact, care and the absence of this greatly impacts on a person' emotional and psychological development.

The high rate of divorce and failed relationships that were originally initiated solely for economics and sexual pleasure implies an absence of love and that emptiness impacts on the development of the child whether directly or indirectly. That is why I say that family planning through authentic bond and love between two people - love being a decision - is the only time I will accept having my own child. It is love that enables an emotional connection, it is the foundation of our morals, our feelings. If you think that it is arrogant of me to say that a relationship without this unifying or authentically bonding mechanism is wrong, then yes, I am arrogant.

Forgive me, but I find the attempt to objectively weigh the good and bad in life in order to decide, depending on which direction the scale tips, whether to line up for or against antinatalism, to be a futile exercise. I don't think goodness and evil are quantifiable. My own subjective experience is that evil greatly outweighs the good, but I have no way to empirically go about proving that.

Such an assertion on my part will always be countered by someone who asserts that his or her own subjective experience of life is replete with sunshine and daisies. I have no way of refuting such a claim except to say that said person is deluded. For some who assert it, this may indeed be the case, for there is such a thing as an optimism bias, but then so too is there a pessimism bias. Life is probably a great deal worse than most of us imagine it to be and a great deal better than what it could be.

I do not reject antinatalism because my life has gone or is going swimmingly. I reject it because the arguments don't work. It is also an ironic position to hold, being self-refuting. That is, to the extent that antinatalism makes people miserable, which it undoubtedly does, then based on the very negative utilitarian principles on which it is based, one is obliged to reject it.

Well, I didn't mention love at all, so I am not sure where this fits into my pessimism or antinatalism. I guess, if I was to pull out something, it is your use of "purpose" in connection with compassion. If my argument is that no one needs to be born to carry out any X reason. Then no, no one needs to be born to be given the problem of trying to overcome selfishness and show compassion for fellow man in the first place. In other words, though compassion should be something sought once born, it is not a reason to be born. — schopenhauer1

You are looking at the subject in a counterfactual way because it is not grounded in the child, but the parents giving birth to the child. Indeed, there is an absence of compassion/empathy within your argument and the very reasoning behind my involvement of "love" - Schopenhauer' (no pun intended) On the Basis of Morality believed that the application of rational, regulatory behaviour in the absence of compassion lacks moral fibre or that real "kernel" within and so such behaviour is not authentically moral but rather driven by an injurious mechanics that enables immoral conduct. "Whoever is filled with it [compassion] will assuredly injure no one, do harm to no one, encroach on no man's rights; he will rather have regard for every one, forgive every one, help every one as far as he can, and all his actions will bear the stamp of justice and loving-kindness." That aspect to his argument is favourable to me because an absence of it reminiscent of a calculating, cold 'mirroring' that lacks consciousness or a 'will' that ultimately drives a person to behave. The Kantian rationale should only occur after this and our motivation or Will must contain this kernel, it must be driven by this compassion, this love, morality, ethics, whatever label you want to call it (I call it moral consciousness).

What I am trying to get at is that under certain circumstances it is not wrong to give birth and this is dependent on the risks and the capacity of prospective parents to correctly apply themselves - their will or motivation - to act with this 'kernel' or love, empathy, compassion knowing that by decisively or rationally placing concern on the child' well-being, that child will not encounter these issues that you express they will because they will experience the love, support, the contact with two people that will enable them with the right understanding of how to find that Will to compassion. While this may not be a reason to give birth, it is the reason that once given birth.

Many people do not have this 'kernel' and so essentially are not motivated with this empathy, compassion, love and act without feeling and such people create the problem that you take issue with. So, you are drawing focus on the wrong thing - antinatalism - when the real issue is the essential nature of humankind. You are taking that static or fatalistic approach that I take issue with. The only argument you have, really, is about risk but my justification is that two loving parents minimise that risk exponentially.

That is, to the extent that antinatalism makes people miserable, which it undoubtedly does, then based on the very negative utilitarian principles on which it is based, one is obliged to reject it. — Thorongil

Forgive me, but are you not pro-celibacy? I should think that to be self-refuting, which just makes the logic of your entire argument problematic.

Alas, it seems to me that the number of loving parents, call them Schopenhauerian parents, is rather small. Indeed, Schopenhauer's own parents lacked the compassion he emphasized and which you describe.

In any case, the antinatalist, beholden to negative utilitarianism, cannot abide so much as an ounce of suffering if he is to remain consistent. There is a reason schop1 speaks of "structural suffering." Assuming a moral imperative to reduce all suffering, then procreation is immoral, as even the most compassionate parents in the world will not produce a life that does not suffer and thereby add to its sum.

Forgive me, but are you not pro-celibacy? I should think that to be self-refuting, which just makes the logic of your entire argument problematic. — TimeLine

You should think what to be self-refuting? Being in favor of celibacy? Why would it be?

You should think what to be self-refuting? Being in favor of celibacy? Why would it be? — Thorongil

It really depends on your justification for celibacy, but I assume it attracts in similar vein to your original rejection of anti-natalism the same self-refuting irony (although I believe neither anti-natalism nor celibacy makes people miserable since 'misery' is entirely subjective). My arguments for celibacy are not absolute (very similar to that of anti-natalism where an authenticity in this intimacy between two people must first be established through love before choosing to have children) because what should fundamentally drive us is our will to compassion and love. It is my practical way of confirming how much I believe in this, but there is nothing inherently wrong with sexual intercourse; it is only wrong when it dictates your Will to act above and over compassion and love.

Alas, it seems to me that the number of loving parents, call them Schopenhauerian parents, is rather small. Indeed, Schopenhauer's own parents lacked the compassion he emphasized and which you describe. — Thorongil

I like that name, actually. :D But, given that it is small, it returns back to my original argument vis-a-vis purpose, that when there is wrong, we should have the will to make it right. There is always a way in which we can improve and so anti-natalism is incorrect because we are drawing focus on the wrong problem as the real problem is rather this lack of compassion and empathy. That is what we should be changing and not completely stopping the birth of children. It is like putting a bandaid on your hand when the cut is on your leg and under certain circumstances anti-natalism is justified, but not entirely.

In any case, the antinatalist, beholden to negative utilitarianism, cannot abide so much as an ounce of suffering if he is to remain consistent. There is a reason schop1 speaks of "structural suffering." Assuming a moral imperative to reduce all suffering, then procreation is immoral, as even the most compassionate parents in the world will not produce a life that does not suffer and thereby add to its total. — Thorongil

They have some pretty strong arguments when it comes to 'risk' but I do agree with this.

It is wrong to spend $50,000 on a wedding, I can even go so far as to call that unethical... it is not justifiable ethically when there are thousands of children in need — TimeLine

Never mind thousands of children in need! They could put their $50,000 of cash in my hands so that I could complete my education before I drop dead of old age. I haven't been to Paris, have not seen the Mona Lisa, haven't been to the Hermitage in St. Petersburg (Russia, not Florida), haven't toured the 50 (50? maybe 25) Great Cities of Europe, haven't been to Machu Picchu, Brasilia, can't afford a decent high powered microscope, haven't taken my favorite TPF posters out to lunch--for 50K, TimeLine, I'll pick up the tab at whatever fine dining establishment you want, just us two. Well, maybe several others -- depending. We might run out of conversational common ground before the Maitre'd decides at which preferred table to put us.

Life is good, see, and $50,000 in my hands would make it even better.

I might even take Schopenhauer1 along to see if I can't arrange experiences which will be so thrilling he'll change his mind about the downside of nativity. Though, $50,000 isn't all that much when you get down to it. In order to change Schopenhauer1's mind, I might have to also have the $50,000 from the in vitro fertilization operation. Get me $100,000, TimeLine, and I'll throw in a second lunch and several movies. Maybe we could pick up a few philosophers and go bar hopping, or something.

Well, we'll meet in France, have lunch and go visit the Mona Lisa together. I take it that I am your favourite TPF poster?

Are you getting to France on your own dime, or do I have to pay for that?

I take care of myself, old horse.

I hope there is at least one 3 star Michelin restaurant left that really is very good. Or would you rather go slumming?

Dude, I'm a 3 star Michelin cook. Farmers market then back to my place.

but I assume it attracts in similar vein to your original rejection of anti-natalism the same self-refuting irony — TimeLine

Are you saying that celibacy makes people miserable? I don't see that it does. It's a way of life that can be tested and found wanting or not wanting depending on the individual. Antinatalism is different, for it is not a way of life but a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to perhaps the most common, basic, and accepted acts of human existence, which in turn changes the complexion of one's everyday experience of life considerably, and for the worse. A cheerful antinatalist is a contradiction in terms. If the claim this view makes is taken seriously, then merely to live and interact in the world is to be continually confronted with and reminded of the object of one's moral disapprobation, which cannot but be met with sorrow and dismay (e.g: seeing a pregnant woman or hearing of someone's fervent desire to have children). Sometimes, the ubiquity of natality will be met with outright misanthropy, in addition to resentment at being born and at the decision of one's parents to procreate, even if one's parents are otherwise kind, loving people. I have no firm statistics, but the suicide rate among antinatalists is doubtless very high. Many antinatalist communities and individuals praise and even encourage the act. It is therefore naive to believe it can be genuinely maintained in a theoretical sense without it affecting one's psychological, emotional, and possibly physical state, and again, for the worse. In sum, celibacy isn't defined as a moral judgment, whereas antinatalism is, and because it is, and because of the nature of that which it judges, it leads to almost perpetual anguish and misery.

it is only wrong when it dictates your Will to act above and over compassion and love — TimeLine

For the sake of argument, wouldn't it dictate your will to act above and over compassion and love for the duration of copulation? Otherwise, what does your qualification here mean?

In The Gay Science Nietzsche criticises his former pessimistic idols; he calls Schopenhauer's and Wagner's pessimism, a romantic pessimism. Romantic pessimism, he argues, suffers from "the impoverishment of life and seeks rest, stillness, calm seas, redemption from themselves through art and knowledge, or intoxication..." (aphorism 370) He is seeking a different kind of "pessimism of strength" rather than a pessimism of weakness; a pessimism that affirms life rather than denies life. This, he argued in the Birth of Tragedy, existed in Greek culture prior to the arrival of Socrates. Here is a quote from The Gay Science; it's the very end of aphorism 370:

"(That there may be quite a different kind of pessimism, a classical pessimism - this presentiment and vision belongs to me, as something inseparable from me, as my proprium and ipsissimum; only that the word "classical" is repugnant to my ears, it has become far too worn, too indefinite and indistinguishable. I call that pessimism of the future, - for it is coming! I see it coming! - Dionysian pessimism.)"

I need to read more Nietzsche! I think he is using the term differently to our everyday understanding of it. In a Heideggerian sense, pessimism (as an attunement) would disclose the world to be in a certain way. This way would disclose certain truths of our existence. Pessimism, as Nietzsche means it, seems to be this disclosure plus an affirmation of this disclosure.

Indeed what Thorongil says- no reason to create suffering where there was none before. Though, I agree with the sentiment that a two parent household, with loving parents is the optimal arrangement for raising children, there should be no children to raise in the first place. No one needs to be given the problems of life in order to carry out X reason (i.e. achievement, relationships, learning, etc. etc.). No one's life need be a vehicle for more instances of experience, as your post implies. No one needs to be given the premise of survival, comfort-seeking, and boredom-regulation- the constant goal-seeking that is ceaseless- the constant energy put forth for maintenance- the constant impingement of contingent harms. Indeed, no one needs to grow, as no one needs to be born in the first place.

The circular reasoning that without any individuals being born, there are no individuals experiencing growth breaks down in the broken logic of its own circularity. Compassion, the movie, does not have to played out for any new individual. Life is not a movie where one jumps in the air, fist out in triumph at 99 years of age while the scene freezes and then fades out.. Life isn't a movie. Life isn't a play. Life isn't a compassion love story. Life isn't a Nietzschean tragic-comedy. Life is an instrumental affair of survival, comfort and boredom regulation via the milieu of a linguistic-cultural setting, repeated unto death. We survive through economic/institutional means, we seek comfort via our institutional/encultured habits, we seek entertainment due to our restless, linguistically-based, culturally constructed, minds.

At the end of the day it is absurd the energy we put forth to maintain our existence. There is no ending it except through death. As stated earlier- there is the non-existence before birth, there is death. Why the in between? Every time this is answered, a circularity ensues.. Compassion needs to be carried out by individuals who need to experience it is apparently your answer. Why must compassion be carried out in the first place though? Does it add some substance to the universe? Does it please some god? Does it just make you smile as someone who is already born (not taking into account that from the point of view of the universe, there is no one to smile upon such a thing as compassion)?

I might even take Schopenhauer1 along to see if I can't arrange experiences which will be so thrilling he'll change his mind about the downside of nativity. Though, $50,000 isn't all that much when you get down to it. In order to change Schopenhauer1's mind, I might have to also have the $50,000 from the in vitro fertilization operation. Get me $100,000, TimeLine, and I'll throw in a second lunch and several movies. Maybe we could pick up a few philosophers and go bar hopping, or something. — Bitter Crank

I'll take the offer, but keeping the antinatalism, I'm afraid.. :D. I mean, life sucks, but antinatalism says nothing about not enjoying a 25 city European tour once born ;) .

I think antinatalism ought to be qualified as a mental illness O:)

It is wrong to spend $50,000 on a wedding, I can even go so far as to call that unethical. — TimeLine

No, it may be absolutely necessary to spend that or maybe more if you can afford it on the wedding. If you're worth nothing when you marry a woman, you don't have to. If you're a millionaire, then you sure as hell have to, otherwise she will think that she doesn't mean anything to you. In other words, the marriage must be a material effort it mustn't be easy. If you can easily afford to spend $10,000 on the wedding, then $10,000 is not enough. It's the effort that binds people together - something easily gained is easily lost.

So by spending less than you ought to on your marriage, you are actually undermining it.

You said:

That is, to the extent that antinatalism makes people miserable, which it undoubtedly does, — Thorongil

And I responded with:

although I believe neither anti-natalism nor celibacy makes people miserable — TimeLine

So, how you got:

Are you saying that celibacy makes people miserable? — Thorongil

Is rather awkward. Thus, your cheerful anti-natalist concept is unnecessary; if goodness and evil are not quantifiable because it is subjective, misery and happiness is the same.

Antinatalism is different, for it is not a way of life but a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to perhaps the most common, basic, and accepted acts of human existence, which in turn changes the complexion of one's everyday experience of life considerably, and for the worse. — Thorongil

I am not one who is uncomfortable discussing awkward topics like celibacy that rarely get discussed amongst us non-religious, left-wing socialist folk, but surely that is irrelevant. I could say that celibacy is dogmatic and assigns a negative value to perhaps the most common, basic, and accepted acts of human existence - sex - (it is sexual intercourse that enables people to reproduce) but we both know that would be problematic. A person can be dedicated to either a dogmatic/religious position, a philosophical, political, or a social position that could change their everyday experience considerably.

I have no firm statistics, but the suicide rate among antinatalists is doubtless very high. — Thorongil

Please don't use words like 'doubtless' when you are uncertain. You are surely better than that.

It is therefore naive to believe it can be genuinely maintained in a theoretical sense without it affecting one's psychological, emotional, and possibly physical state, and again, for the worse. In sum, celibacy isn't defined as a moral judgment, whereas antinatalism is, and because it is, and because of the nature of that which it judges, it leads to almost perpetual anguish and misery. — Thorongil

I am not saying that it can be maintained, on the contrary there are compelling arguments against the misanthropic position in particular, but any suggestion that life is not worth living is balanced in an axis that contains compelling arguments both of the benefits of living and procreation that establishes an assymetry and resolves this ethical conflict. The argument that the nature of humanity is inherently evil is not acceptable and if there is conformity, lies, bad things etc., the anti-natalist should be focusing on changing that and not eliminating human existence entirely. It does not, however, mean that arguments against giving birth are incorrect, it just needs to be done without such sharp fatalism where children should cease to exist completely.

My argument is simply this:
People should not be having children for the wrong reasons. It does not mean that people should not be having children. So, what are the wrong reasons? And if they are wrong and if we can articulate why it is wrong, than our attempt should be to make it right. So, how can we make it right? If everyone stopped giving birth, that would not resolve the issue. Giving birth for the right reasons, which would be only when two loving people actively choose and decisively commit themselves to raising the child.

celibacy isn't defined as a moral judgment, whereas antinatalism is — Thorongil

Are you sure about that?

For the sake of argument, wouldn't it dictate your will to act above and over compassion and love for the duration of copulation? Otherwise, what does your qualification here mean? — Thorongil

Do you think that sexual intercourse' only objective is procreation and if so, would your complete abstinence therefore be anti-natalist? There is good, healthy, morally acceptable sex between two loving people. Our instinctual drives can vehicle us to do contrary to this, to cheat, to do some sexually debauch and even criminal acts, but loving relationships are aligned with our will to act with compassion and love. We can behave rationally and stop ourselves from cheating - from a Kantian perspective - but that requires a great deal of effort, but if we obtain this Schops 'kernel' then the effort ceases and our Will is motivated to act with love that all the wrongs like cheating or sexual crimes etc, become impossible naturally. We become happy without effort.

Pretty arrogant of you not to explain why a relationship based solely on sexual pleasure and economics is morally good. — TimeLine

It's not necessarily morally good, but it can certainly be morally good.

The high rate of divorce and failed relationships that were originally initiated solely for economics and sexual pleasure implies an absence of love and that emptiness impacts on the development of the child whether directly or indirectly. — TimeLine

The high rate of divorce has to do primarily with the lack of moral education. Contributing factors are also wrong social expectations and social relationships. One doesn't need to love the other, once married, in order to respect them, live with them and not divorce them - and act as one team together. That just requires moral discipline once a decision was made (to get married) to stick with it. Most people lack that.

In addition, contributing factors are matrimonial stress which typically comes from the fact that the two partners don't have common goals. If the wife, for example, stays at home all day, while the husband goes to work, it's inevitable that she will, sooner or later, feel neglected and start getting bored. Now boredom will push her, presuming that she lacks moral discipline, to engage in all sorts of actions from not taking good care of children, to not wanting to do her part in the house, to even cheating. So the elimination of "free time" is important. Therefore arrangements must be taken in order to ensure that there is little free time. And so on so forth.

the most common, basic, and accepted acts of human existence - sex — TimeLine

:s - are you living on planet Earth, or Mars? :-d As far as I know, eating, going to the toilet, drinking, sleeping and working are all far more common, basic and accepted than sex.

are you living on planet Earth, or Mars? — Agustino

Earth.