I doubt I can think of anything more futile than wondering whether I was born for a "good purpose" or complaining if I was not.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

The problem with not realistically examining the causal ramifications of parents actions is building a fake society on a delusion Remorselessly trying to resolve remorseless problems being cyclically created by unreflective reproduction.

False ideologies and power structures should always be challenged. I don't believe in "freeing" ones self by psychologically weak conformity. This probably leads to disease of the unconscious anyway lol.

I think like most or all antinatalists I despair for the current and future generations undergoing unnecessary hardship. The solution to all problem is not to create more people, but even if you don't go to that extreme you can at least rationally procreate in moderation

But the beginning of the universe is just a tad remote in comparison with the sexual intercourse of our mommies and daddies — Ciceronianus the White

Parents are the immediate cause of children, The big bang is a hypothesised, remote, insufficient cause.

Causality has played a big role in science. We find the appropriate causes for events and can manipulate or just understand them better.

Having no interest in the things caused by procreating smells of basic ignorance. I find too much literature uninteresting because it fails to mention the dynamic of parenting creating new generations. It is all about society and life after the act of procreation. The creation of more people is either completely ignored or figures as an inevitably which it isn't.

It is not a blame game but a rational exploration of the provable causal relationship between procreation, the society and the individual.

I think one reason people don't want restrictions, assessments or reflections on reproduction is because they are worried they might be condemned in such as system. This can lead to mediocre parents making excuses for terrible parents with platitudes like "we all make mistakes"

If we are going to give the parents the "No Free Will" type get-out-clause for reproducing it should be applied every persons every action.

However it is most widely used in this domain where wild uncontrollable forces are invoked in sex and child making.

If you except we have some free will or ability to reflect and change then I don't think you can invoke the aforementioned forces.

I doubt I can think of anything more futile than wondering whether I was born for a "good purpose" or complaining if I was not. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't know where you got that. I didn't express wondering about whether we were born for a good purpose. And I didn't complain. It would be ridiculous to complain about something (my birth) that happened because of me.

I mentioned the obvious observation that we're brought into this world because of reproductive instinct, so that we, too, will reproduce. It doesn't take an antinatalist or an absurdist (I'm definitely not an absurdist) to comment on that as I did. But if you want to talk about complaining, talk to Schope. I didn't complain.

In fact, I emphasized, at the end of my post that the matter wasn't important, in spite of their irresponsibility in bringing us into the world, their not-so-good societal world, out parents have nothing to do with why we're here. We're here because of ourselves. We were born because of ourselves, not because of our parents.

Michael Ossipoff

I think like most or all antinatalists I despair for the current and future generations undergoing unnecessary hardship. The solution to all problem is not to create more people, but even if you don't go to that extreme you can at least rationally procreate in moderation — Andrew4Handel

It's quite possible to sensibly advocate the position that reproduction should be reduced. The key word in your post as far as I'm concerned is "rationally." For me, the claim that it is wrong in all cases to have children and right in all cases not to have them is far too absolute, and I don't know of any reasonable support for such a contention.

This can lead to mediocre parents making excuses for terrible parents with platitudes like "we all make mistakes" — Andrew4Handel

Well, there's always the eugenics option. That would eliminate those damned mistakes. Probably reduce the suffering inflicted on those unfortunate enough to be born, too, if successful.

I misunderstood. Sorry.

I don't know of any reasonable support for such a contention. — Ciceronianus the White

Structural suffering If part of life is lacking something, and we are almost always lacking something. Life is about satiating that lack. If lacking something is considered a form of metaphysical suffering, which I believe it to be, then this is a problem from existing at the start. Metaphysically speaking, sleep-state would be most complete. No need for need.

in case it seems as if I was contradicting myself:

The only requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent, because there are no inconsistent facts--even abstract ones.

Therefore, a person's hypothetical experience-story has to include evidence for a physical mechanism for the physical creation of the physical animal that that person is.

So, enter Mr. & Mrs. _________.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't accept the argument that people should not have children because a person, once born, will suffer somehow, sometime.

Is this a brute fact of Ciceronianus’ judgement? Why don’t you accept the argument? All things being equal, no “one” loses out on existence. Do you think experiencing existence is its own good? Is this just sophisticated “people need to exist for this ethic to be valid in the first place” reasoning? In other words, is your defense, the tree falling argument?

In arguing against an absolute claim (we should not have children, ever), I'm not required to adopt an absolute position contrary to it (we should have children, always). I may instead claim that we may sometimes have children, and in other cases we should not That's my position. It's a decision to made by thoughtful consideration of circumstances, one's duties and obligations, on a case-by-case basis.

In arguing against an absolute claim (we should not have children, ever), I'm not required to adopt an absolute position contrary to it (we should have children, always). I may instead claim that we may sometimes have children, and in other cases we should not That's my position. It's a decision to made by thoughtful consideration of circumstances, one's duties and obligations, on a case-by-case basis. — Ciceronianus the White

That's a false dichotomy. Rather, the question is, is it good/right/fair to create a new person in the first place, under any circumstance. You say that under some circumstances, it is good/right/fair or at least permissible to create new people. I have delineated the problems of creating new people, but you seem to downplay or overlook them. I also try to emphasize that there is a difference in ethical logic when it comes to considering someone who is not YET born with the ethical logic of ALREADY being born. The logic for ALREADY being born would be weighing goods and bads against a backdrop of already existing alternatives. This is more complex, and nuanced. The not YET born scenario is weighing options against never existing and simplifies the logic into stark binary/digital logic. However, what questions and state of affairs are relevant is what matters when looking at the logic. Let us call not yet existing logic, L1. Let us call already existing logic, L2. Things that you downplay or do not consider that I think are of the utmost importance:

Structural suffering (burdens of living already baked into existence):
1) We are always lacking something. Creating a state of affairs where a new being NEEDS and WANTS is creating a state of affairs of undo burden when this burden did not have to exist IN THE FIRST PLACE.

1a) Related to this more abstract lack, is the more concrete examples of survival and underlying restlessness that characterizes the human affair. For survival, the myriad of tasks that become a given for the new person to take on, is already an undo burden put on something that did not have to face this. The only options being acceptance and suicide, though seemingly a harsh contrast, when boiled down to its components, is the choice that is presented to a person. This stark choice, and the undo burden placed upon the individual, when juxtaposed to the choice of never being born, makes sense not to place on an individual.

Thus against the logic of L1, structural suffering creates a reason to not procreate under any circumstances, being that this is always in the equation. It is more refined, more abstract reasoning, and though it is less immediate in its impact on the human, when comparing a state of affairs without lack to one with lack, this makes sense. You do not need people to exist in the first place for this to be true either. It is true even without observers to point this out.

Contingent suffering (burdens of living dependent on circumstances of time and place):
We encounter the myriad of circumstantial suffering in varying degrees. This includes the painful situations based on time and place. It could be any negative encounters that we daily face in our interactions with the world and ourselves. You may say that it can be predicted which people will have less contingent pain than others based on circumstances, but this is not really true. People are too independent for there to be this kind of 1:1 ratio of pre-birth conditions (good parents, good environment, etc.) and the myriad of circumstances that cause suffering for the future individual. Different circumstances, chance, genetic factors, can alter the actual contingent harms that a person faces in their daily lives. Related to structural suffering, contingent suffering puts an undo burden on the individual that did not have to be there in the first place. Again, L1 logic changes things.

Hidden political teleology:
In a previous thread, I mentioned that having children is THE ultimate political statement. It is a vote "YAY" for existence/society. By procreating an individual, you are saying that there is some THING the child MUST experience. Using the logic of L1, what exactly MUST be experienced. This is a quasi-religious point of view if you think about it. The "gauntlet" of life is something that individuals must face. There is some reason existing make sense. However, there is no justification for why experience needs to be had in the first place. Against the backdrop of L1, not existing is better off when considering the structural and continent harms. Further, if we take structural suffering seriously (which I get it, you don't), since not existing means not being in a state of affairs, it is ALWAYS better off. Even considering contingent suffering, you are SUBJECTING an individual to life's contingent circumstances of harm against the backdrop of not subjecting anyone to this. Again, L1 wins out. The parental will to see a circumstances whereby a new person must DEAL and be SUBJECTED to existence is a POLITICAL statement, and as such, needs justification that this is being done to a new person. What is the reasoning though, when we examine it? Do we have some sort of mission to make sure people are brought into the world? That just becomes self-justifying.

The not YET born scenario is weighing options against never existing and simplifies the logic into stark binary/digital logic. — schopenhauer1

not existing is better off when considering the structural and continent harms. — schopenhauer1

There is nothing logical about comparing non-existence to existence, sorry. There is no thing that is non-existence; there is no person that does not exist, and therefore there is no person who is better off not existing. There is no condition of non-existence to be preferred to existence. You're using language which has meaning only in terms of who and what exists; not otherwise.

There is nothing logical about comparing non-existence to existence, sorry. There is no thing that is non-existence; there is no person that does not exist, and therefore there is no person who is better off not existing. There is no condition of non-existence to be preferred to existence. You're using language which has meaning only in terms of who and what exists; not otherwise. — Ciceronianus the White

On the surface, it may seem this way, but that is incorrect. The decision is made by an existing person who is comparing something-that-does-not-exist to something-that-might exist. It is simply comparing two possible states of affairs. It is logical to talk in real-world possibilities. So therefore, the point you make is moot or a rhetorical exercise.