Yes all problems come from being born in the first place- including whether to commit suicide. There is no off switch, sleep being the closest thing. The burdens of survival, the lack inherent in existence is all a part of it. As I said in a previous thread: "The goods of life represent what we have not now." Energy is needed by the new human. To contribute to the whole, somehow, to be a minutia monger being the highest form of contribution.

People have goals, and wants, and such, and if enculturated well, these goals keep technology going, and people find satisfaction in contributing to this. Those not well-adjusted are said to need therapy as their outlook is not contributing to the whole.

Projects and relationships will be the closest you get to personal reasons.. Master that ski jump, master that piece of code on a program, master being a furniture-builder.. get involved in your community.. etc. etc. These things happen to also contribute to the whole, as it is producing and maintaining the community, and finding meaning in creating outputs for the community.

I think holding the right people accountable for things is possibly the most important part of rationality.

If you consider accurate causal attributions as essential to rationality.

I think parents are causally responsible for a lot of things but are not held responsible for these things or their causal role is ignored in the setting up of ideologies and belief systems.

I don't think a magical moment happens when someone becomes responsible for their own existence and the parents can then breathe a sigh of relief and wash their hands of the child they produced once they become an adult.

People will argue, no doubt, that we can't control reproduction or hold parents accountable for everything practically. However I think causal responsibility holds nevertheless even without blame or accountability.

For example imagine X kills Y and X is never caught for the killing. He is still responsible for the killing. So I think especially in that case, people will not just abandon claims of responsibility because of the lack of being able to hold X properly accountable. With a violent crime it is easy for people to ask for X to be held accountable but it is inconsistent then to deny other causal relations.

Yes all problems come from being born in the first place- including whether to commit suicide. — schopenhauer1

I get the impression people do not want to accept this, so there is less burden on those choosing to have children because they can distance them selves from the process.

In a way therapy is where a lot of people are trying to deal with the ramifications of reproduction and the existence it creates.

Philosophers and scientists are trying to understand the reality they were thrust into. Inventors and Engineers are trying to improve the quality of existence.

I feel it is irrational and unethical to not explore the real impacts of reproducing and treat it like a valueless inevitability. It is like someone crashing her car into a group of people then driving off into the sunset ,unconcerned feeling a lack of responsibility and not being held accountable.

We need a new narrative. But maybe rationality will just lead us to abandon reproducing.

When a criminal commits a crime, his parents, heredity, and societal influences are fully to blame...and so is he.
It isn't either/.or.

Likewise your life.

Before you fully blame your parents, realize that the matter of why you were born depends on what metaphysics you're going by. Some of us are Materialists and just assume that the Materialist interpretation is the right one here. Don't be so sure.

I suggest that you're in a life because you're the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience-stories...which there timelessly are. That reason why you're in a life has nothing whatsoever to do with your parents. If Mr. & Mrs. ________ had been celibate or infertile, or had never met, you'd still have been born into a life. ...as a person similar to the one you now are, in a world similar to this one.

Of course you'll disagree with that if you're a Materialist.

But no, that doesn't let your parents off the hook. Socially-speaking, n the context of this physical world, they are responsible for your being here. ...and probably at least partly for you being the way you are (without claiming that we're only the product of our environment).

But, in any case, if you reproduce, then you're adding to the Earth's overpopulation, with all of its adverse consequences. There's no metaphysical way around that, no matter what your metaphysics is.

Michael Ossipoff

When a criminal commits a crime, his parents, heredity, and societal influences are fully to blame...and so is he.
It isn't either/.or. — Michael Ossipoff

I think the difference between someones responsibility for a crime and someones responsibility for creating a child is that the parent creates an existence. A crime happens after an existence occurs.

I think how we come into existence as conscious entities is puzzling. Some people do argue we choose our parents. However I think choosing our parents from some other spiritual realm doesn't make sense unless one can prove that we forced our parents to reproduce.

My main concern is for a rational discourse that attribute causality accurately. It is not about blame so much.

To me a failure to accurately attribute responsibility is nihilistic and a recipe for chaos and to me it explains things like Nazism and Communism and religion because rather than hold individuals responsible for creating a life it makes a society responsible and one can just join the masses in conformity and shifting blame around to authorities and outside groups or spiritual forces, gods, determinism, biology and so on.

I really feel a futility to life and philosophy if it is not grounded in an accurate representation of what is happening[ (which is the creation of individual sentience by parents). As an individual you have to fight against society for personal justice and integrity.

It seems to me that if you believe that our parents should not have had children--that if they acted morally none of us would be alive--you would think a great deal if not all of philosophy is, like life itself, of little worth; merely something to be borne due to our parents' failings.

I think we are forced into existence and I think there needs to be a really good reason to do that.

When we realise we exist then we have an array of puzzling questions. I think the reasons our parents give for creating us is important for us to make sense of our life.

My parents reasons are confused and sadistic. For example they believe in hell and damnation, they told their children since they were born that they were fatally flawed sinners that deserved hell (due to the original sin).
And that used to be a widespread belief.

Also they probably believed God commanded them to go forth and,multiply. However there are lots of contradictions in the bible that have been well documented for many centuries so they didn't examine their beliefs
but forced them on their children in a fundamentalist Christian childhood were we went to church up to 5 times a week.

No one can seriously claim they had good intentions for their children because they created people hey sort were inherently fatally flawed and exposed them to hell and damnation. They also believe billions of people will be in hell. Unfortunately for most of human history this ideology has not been seen as malevolent like it should be.

So it is not like I am here because of my parents rationality and positive intentions and I think anyone has a justifiable right to be angry and resentful about being born especially if they had an abusive childhood.

People should have provide more justification for having children. I certainly feel victimised and discontented.

Some people do argue we choose our parents. However I think choosing our parents from some other spiritual realm doesn't make sense unless one can prove that we forced our parents to reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

We didn't choose our parents. But we're the reason why we're in a life. ...for the reason that I mentioned in my previous post.

Out predispositions and inclinations are what "chose" our world for us.

In my previous post, I agreed that socially-speaking, in the context of this physical world, our parents are fully responsible for our being in this world.

And I agreed that reproduction is undesirable when it overpopulates the Earth.

Michael Ossipoff

I find it hard not to feel coerced.

It seems hard to be free when you do not feel like you chose this life or your parents.

Some antinatalists use the Kidnapping metaphor. What is the difference between kidnapping someone and having achild?

No one thinks your kidnapper has rights over you or that you have responsibilities to your kidnapper or that you should be grateful to them. But society completely misrepresents this coercive dynamic.

In a way suicide is a form of protest but in a sense it's self defeating. But maybe one can try and change the world before one leaves it or protest whilst alive.

So it is not like I am here because of my parents rationality and positive intentions

:) Well said.
— Andrew4Handel

and I think anyone has a justifiable right to be angry and resentful about being born especially if they had an abusive childhood.

No, don't feel angry or resentful because you were born. As I said, you're the reason why you were born. It would be futile and pointless to be angry and resentful toward yourself for being what or who you are.

But yes, we certainly can have good reason to feel angry and resentful about being born to a couple who are entirely unqualified to be responsible for children. I personally testify to that. Socially, that folly was their doing and their responsibility.

An abusive childrhood--From the social standpoint, we have good reason to resent that too. i personally testify to that too.

What kind of fanciful thinking were my unqualified parents engaged in when they decided to have children? And the way of life that was portrayed to, offered to, imposed on me by elders (at home, and in the bizarrely shabby thing called "school") who were supposed to know better than I...Whom was that for? It's difficult to believe that it was supposed to be for me. But for whom then??

Michael Ossipoff

As I said, you're the reason why you were born. — Michael Ossipoff

I didn't understand that entirely.

It's difficult to believe that it was supposed to be for me. But for whom then?? — Michael Ossipoff

I think the problem is that your parents probably aimed their parenting towards you but had no idea who the real you was.
There probably is a tension between natural parental concern and the rubbish parents learn from society and their own childhood etc.

I think the dysfunctional relationship with my parents is probably still a mental drain on me. One therapist did suggest I tried to recreate childhood relationships with new friends (ie replacing failed dynamics and relations)

Would I feel equally coerced if I had great parents and more self esteem?

My parents .... believe in hell and damnation, they told their children since they were born that they were fatally flawed sinners that deserved hell (due to the original sin).

I am so sorry to hear that. It must have been really distressing growing up under that influence.

It's probably no consolation to say this, but it may well be that they had those terrible beliefs indoctrinated into them so early in life that they could not resist and could not shake free of them later.

”As I said, you're the reason why you were born.” — Michael Ossipoff
.

I didn't understand that entirely.

.
It refers to something that I’d said earlier in the thread. By the metaphysics that I propose, you’re in a life because you’re the protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience story. In other words, among the infinity of life-experience-stories, there’s one whose protagonist is you. That’s what and who you are.
.
Because what and who you are is the protagonist of a life-experience-story, then it would be meaningless to speak of you not being in a life.
.
That’s why you’re in a life. It’s got nothing to do with your parents.
.
Of course socially, yes it’s the parents’ doing, and they’re responsible for that.
.
Background explanation:
.
There are abstract facts, at least in the sense that we can speak of them and refer to them.
.
In particular, there are abstract implications, at least in the sense that we can speak of them and refer to them.
.
I don’t claim any other reality or existence for those abstract implications.
.
(An implication is an implying. In this particular usage, it’s an implying of one proposition by another proposition.)
.
Therefore, there are also (in the same limited sense) infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Some of those infinitely-many complex hypothetical logical systems fit (with appropriate naming) the description of someone’s experience. …the experience of an animal in a physical world. I call those “hypothetical life-experience-stories”.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience is other than that. As the protagonist, the experiencer, of that experience-story, you’re one of two complementary parts of that story: You and your physical surroundings are the two complementary parts of your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
In 1844, Michael Faraday pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical world consists of other than logical and mathematical structural relation. There’s no reason to believe in the supposed objectively-existent “stuff” that the structural-relations are about.
.
That’s consistent with what I’ve been saying above.
.
Yes, of course your experience isn’t always of logic and mathematics. The only requirement for your experience is that it be consistent. Your experience of your physical surroundings/world must be consistent, because there are no such things as inconsistent, mutually-contradictory, facts.
.
But that consistency-requirement brings logic into your experience of your physical world. So your life-experience possibility-story (about an animal’s experience of its physical surroundings) is a logical system.
.
As I said, there timelessly is that hypothetical experience story. You are a complementary part of it. There’d be no “You” without that hypothetical life experience story. It’s about you, and it’s the reason for you, and you’re the reason for it.
.
…and you’re the reason why you’re in a life.
.

”It's difficult to believe that it was supposed to be for me. But for whom then??” — Michael Ossipoff

.
I think the problem is that your parents probably aimed their parenting towards you but had no idea who the real you was.

.
…or who the real Them was either. People who have serious personality-problems shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce or parent. For example, my mother was a bully, a coward who needed someone smaller, in order to compensate for her own self-esteem problems.
Bullies? The was no shortage…parents, or at school, or in the ambient society in which we grew up.
.

Would I feel equally coerced if I had great parents and more self esteem?

.
No. It’s because of the conditions in childhood—the parents in particular.
.
I think that kidnapping analogy is spot-on: We never agreed to have those parents. So what’s the difference between kidnapping and having a child?
.
Michael Ossipoff

It's probably no consolation to say this, but it may well be that they had those terrible beliefs indoctrinated into them so early in life that they could not resist and could not shake free of them later. — andrewk

I think the problem is more with their personalities. I never believed in the religion the way they did and I spent 17 years in the same church and considered myself a Christian.

I would just reject clearly unpleasant doctrine even though I had many anxieties created by it.

I grew up in a similar environment to my mothers but I left at 17 despite the massive stress it caused me. The dishonesty and stress of following false doctrine in a cruel environment was worse than leaving and facing homelessness. I felt trapped in that church and still dream that I am trapped in it to this day.

I think some people embrace a religious doctrine because it serves their personality and desires and they don't even attempt to critique their own belief.

But nevertheless why have children if you have such negative beliefs? I feel society does not challenge parents and allows this to happen.

I think people conform because it appears easier than the alternative and self analysis. Anti-natalists in general have had to or just do that analysis and face the conclusions.

So what’s the difference between kidnapping and having a child? — Michael Ossipoff

I think if there is a difference it is in attitude, where someone loves a parent and is grateful to them and has a fulfilling life so they don't feel imposed on.The problem is once someones life goes bad it can seem like an imposition. I don't know if there is a correlation between parent-child bond and value of ones own life.

I think a kidnapping is partly condemned because of the distress caused.

The distressing thing for me is amount of people not providing a fulfilling life and environment for their children.

This is why I think we really need to take action to change the dialogue on having children and enforce greater children's rights.

Because what and who you are is the protagonist of a life-experience-story, then it would be meaningless to speak of you not being in a life. — Michael Ossipoff

I do feel solipsistic and think the nature of consciousness is solipsistic. So not so much one of many life stories but the center of some kind of game where I am the central protagonist.

"Because what and who you are is the protagonist of a life-experience-story, then it would be meaningless to speak of you not being in a life." — Michael Ossipoff

I do feel solipsistic and think the nature of consciousness is solipsistic. So not so much one of many life stories but the center of some kind of game where I am the central protagonist. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, Subjective Idealism really seems right. There are various definitions of Solipsism, Maybe the Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism that I've been proposing could fit one of those definitions.

But I don't know if it should be called Solipsism, because I don't believe that only I objectively exist.

I feel that, among what's in the describable world, Consciousness, each experiencer, is fundamental and prior. That's how it seems, and there's no reason to believe that that isn't how it is.

By the way, the Subjective Idealism is one of the matters on which I disagree with the metaphysicses of Frank Tippler and Max Tegmark, described as Ontic Structural Realism. They posit an objective world-story, whereas I speak of a subjective experience-story. It's obvious to me that the individual's experience is what it's about.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

because I don't believe that only I objectively exist. — Michael Ossipoff

I shouldn't say "objectively exist", when speaking of any of what is in the describable world.

By the way, regarding the abstract implications that I spoke of, of course I don't claim that any of their antecedents are true. ...reminding me of when Roy McAllister, in the move Wolf, said, "Is any of that true?"

Michael Ossipoff

I think if there is a difference it is in attitude, where someone loves a parent and is grateful to them and has a fulfilling life so they don't feel imposed on.

.
Certainly.
.

The problem is once someone’s life goes bad it can seem like an imposition.

.
Especially if it starts out bad or adversely.
.

I don't know if there is a correlation between parent-child bond and value of one’s own life.

.
Parenting, good or bad, can make all the difference in the child’s life, at the time, and afterwards.
.

I think a kidnapping is partly condemned because of the distress caused.

.
The distressing thing for me is amount of people not providing a fulfilling life and environment for their children.

.
More than that, it’s at least sometimes a matter of bringing a child into the world, and then killing that life just starting out.
.

This is why I think we really need to take action to change the dialogue on having children and enforce greater children's rights.

.
Now we have the inexplicably ridiculous situation in which anyone can reproduce and parent, just because they choose to…or accidentally reproduce.
.
Proof of emotional and moral qualification should be required, and an official permit needed, to bring a child into the world or to raise a child. Of course there’s the question of who would decide that, and I’m not saying that it’s feasible under current conditions.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It seems to me that if you believe that our parents should not have had children--that if they acted morally none of us would be alive--you would think a great deal if not all of philosophy is, like life itself, of little worth; merely something to be borne due to our parents' failings. — Ciceronianus the White

Well yes probably.

The kind of philosophy we do is answering questions left unanswered by our parents.

What is meaning of life, what is morality and so on. Some questions are an existential burden.

I think to many dialogues academic and social ignore the role of parents in creating existence and societies.

It is a long time since we could claim to be brute animals solely acting on instinct and obeying basic biology with no reasoning ability or knowledge.

Primitive societies often have controlled population levels anyway. This level of massive population growth has come late in human history.

Some people might model humans as machines obeying natural laws or as determined or as swept up in biochemical impulses. But this completely ignores decision making in families , between parents and influential ideologies.
It is easy to invoke these deterministic or wild forces rather than acknowledge parental responsibility and parental dynamics.

I would describe humans as being forced into existence and forcing others into existence, unless we have willfully created someone else we have no responsibility for our existence or anyone else's.

Allowing people to forces others into existence is a different dynamic then a society based on consent and individual responsibility

What if this was only applied on a personal basis? Maybe the person is not able to reproduce and they realize life is hard anyways but they still enjoy their own life. Is this the same as antinatalism?

I would think such questions wouldn't occur to someone who believes life is the unfortunate result of reprehensible conduct.

Questions occur once you start to exist. They appear not to have answers.

But as I say,

underlying these questions is the nature of our parents bringing us into existence

What is morality when you factor in the ethical ramifications of reproduction? How does the meaning of life relate to being thrown into existence by our parents and governed by their motives?

What is morality when you factor in the ethical ramifications of reproduction? How does the meaning of life relate to being thrown into existence by our parents and governed by their motives? — Andrew4Handel

Here are some thoughts:

Being "thrown into existence" is a political act, whether it is overtly stated that way or not by the parent. That is to say, a certain stance is made about existence, and more specifically human existence, which is one couched in a social sphere- a society.

A society is comprised of a community of people in a geographical area, interacting with each other, following similar rules and guidelines, and broadly-speaking, sharing some similarity in values. One of the values that all societies seem to share is that a "flourishing" should take place for the family/individual/whole community. What that flourishing looks like, and the methodology to get there can vary widely, but it seems to be the case that some sort of homeostatic "living well" is a part of this. This definition does not have to be tied strictly to Eudaimonia, but simply the idea of surviving (usually comfortably), and in a sort of continual and consistent lifestyle.

The parents of a child, if they bring their child to term (taking away discussions of abortion for now), usually believe that a new person should be enculturated into a society- that is to say, they should learn the lifestyle and methodology of surviving within a certain community. This enculturation and methodology is deemed as good. There is something, they think, a new person should experience about that community. For example, they can experience personal accomplishment through projects/work. They can experience joy in laughter with friends. They can experience being cared for and caring for a significant other. They can experience the psychological state of "flow"- being super focused in an activity that matches a person's interests and abilities. Also they can experience the pleasures of learning a skill or area of knowledge, and becoming an expert. They can experience being a citizen in a broader community by participating in a number of roles and events. The person can experience the various avenues of physical and more abstract mental pleasures that a community can provide. This hope for a well-adjusted human that "thrives" in a community is probably the kind of thing a thoughtful parent is aiming for. They like these aspects of the community/life and want a new person to also experience a community/life. It is very much sociologically-based reasoning. Even religious-based reasons are sociological-based. A new person needs to be born to experience the glories of serving that god. There is believed to be a goodness to the community serving the god, usually. Even scientific-oriented parents can have a similar idea about their progeny. The progeny can contribute to the technology/science, and overall knowledge of mankind through their community, thus being perceived as "enhancing" their community.

Not only is it sociological in aims, but the act of reproduction is by definition a communal affair. Two people have to have enjoyed life or thought life good enough to get together within their respective communities, had sex, and carried a child out to term. This is again, a sociological act. There is an affirmation in all of this- by the act of two people coming together, and by the aims of thoughtful parents for how they want their potential child to live.

So to conclude this section, and circle back to my original statement, parents are consenting that, yes, they like society and feel it is their right to continue it forward with a new person to experience that society and continue the existence of that society. Hence, it is a political act, if not overtly. Actually, it may be the political act. Without procreation, there is no community/lifestyle/experience of said lifestyle to be had by anyone. Thus, the ultimate political "yay" or "in favor of" is procreation.

However, what is not usually recognized is the structural suffering inherent in existence- built into the human affair. Structural means that it is not based on contingent circumstances like genetics, place of birth, circumstances in time/place, or fortune. Structural suffering can be seen in things like the inherent "lack" that pervades the animal/human psyche. We are lacking at almost all times. The need for food and shelter, the need for mates, the need for friends, the need for interesting projects, the need for flow states, the need for comfortable environments. These "goods" represents things WE DO NOT HAVE (aka lack). We are constantly STRIVING for what is hoped to be fulfilling, but at the end, only temporarily fills the lack state, and for short duration. Structural suffering can also be seen in the psychological state of boredom. I don't see boredom as just another state, I see it as an almost baseline- state. It is a "proof" of existence's own unfulfilled state. This leads again, striving for what we lack. There is a certain burden of being- the burdens of making do- of getting by, of surviving, of filling the lack, of dealing with existence. That we have to deal in the first place is suspect. That not everyone is committing suicide is not a "pro" for the "post facto, people being born is justified" stance. Rather, suicide and being born in the first place are incommensurable.

Then of course, there is the contingent suffering (what is commonly what is thought of as suffering). This is the circumstantial suffering of physical/psychological pains that pervade an individual's life. This may be any form of physical or more emotional pain that befalls a person.

The parents' perspective are that the goods of life, the encultration into society for which these goods are to be had, is something to be experienced and carried forward. Structural suffering is not even seen in the picture. You only go with the information you have at hand, and you deem most important. Structural suffering is not a concept most parents think about, even if it is the main governing principle of animal/human existence. As far as contingent suffering, it has been well-documented the optimism bias that we have in underestimating the harms for past and future events.

Questions occur once you start to exist. They appear not to have answers. — Andrew4Handel

Ah, but to the antinatalist there are answers to some of them. For example, the question "Why am I (or we) here?" is easily answered. Plainly, it's because our parents combined in wrongdoing, causing us to be born; by all rights we shouldn't be alive. "What is the purpose of life?" Well, we shouldn't be alive, and wouldn't be but for the moral failings of our parents. They're responsible for us being here, and they did wrong in doing so. So, we clearly don't live for any good reason, we live because they found some pleasure in the thought of having children or just made a mistake, or were raped or somehow compelled to have children. See?

Some people are here because their parents condom split. From thence the profundity of life.

I go more for Freudian explanations

Some people claim everything started at a big bang moment.

The truth is existence starts when our parents create us. Then we grapple with existence.

Some people claim everything started at a big bang moment.

The truth is existence starts when our parents create us. Then we grapple with existence. — Andrew4Handel

One does what one can, of course. But the beginning of the universe is just a tad remote in comparison with the sexual intercourse of our mommies and daddies, and assuming it's possible to determine the cause of the Big Bang, nobody (yet? who knows the extent of our self-pity and self-righteousness?) has been condemned as immoral for causing it.

The conceit that one exists because of the moral failings of others and as a consequence suffers due to their wrongdoing will taint any view of life.

Antinatalists have a valid point when they ask what was the point of a couple bringing us into this world. They did so either because of physical desire without other intentions, or because of an equally instinctive desire to have children.

...but for what purpose? So that the children will, in their turn, beget further children? So that the children will get to enjoy life (..so that's why we (at least sometimes) regiment them and seemingly do our best to kill whatever life they have)?

That's a valid description of the bizarre events in this physical world and in our lives, and our parents' unjustifiable conduct.

...although it is not an explanation for why we're in a life. ...a whole other matter that I've discussed in other threads

Because it isn't an explanation for why we're in a life, it takes on a low order of importance, and becomes merely a matter of curiosity.

We're here because of ourselves, as I've explained elsewhere in these forums.

Michael Ossipoff