That is not the issue at hand. The issue is, no one needs to assess anything, if they don't exist. — schopenhauer1
The issue at hand according to whom? — Terrapin Station
Argument of antinatalism- not having children. There is no one who is deprived of anything. There is no one who exists to need...anything actually. — schopenhauer1
some actual person will always experience harm if born (the Benatar asymmetry argument). — schopenhauer1
Being born means moving into a constantly deprived state. — schopenhauer1
Life presents challenges to overcome and burdens to deal with. — schopenhauer1
Contingent harm is harm that is situational. You simply do not know how much harms there are in life for a certain person. This creates huge collateral damage that was not meant for the child to endure, but he/she must do it nonetheless. — schopenhauer1
We are used as "technology/progress" advancers by a circular-production system. — schopenhauer1
I can keep going, but I won't. You get the picture. Antinatalism prevents suffering for all, and forcing people into the world. No ONE loses out by not being born, but EVERYONE loses in some way by being born. My inaction to create someone hurts, literally NO ONE. Someone else's action to birth someone, always creates some harm, and if we believe that being deprived is a negative state, there is constant suffering there too. — schopenhauer1
It is too late to be antinatalist. If one were going to nip child-bearing in the bud, one would have to have been actively promoting antinatalism to the immediate descendants of Homo Erectus. The day we became Homo sapiens -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- was the day you should have been out and about preaching antinatalism. Now with 7.2 billion people, it is just too late. It is impossible to convince 7.2 billion people of ANYTHING. — Bitter Crank
Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago. — T Clark
Okay, but you take some back with you, or bring a doctor to sterilize. With their consent after you've convince them, naturally. No reason to not start things unethically. — Marchesk
It is too late to be antinatalist. If one were going to nip child-bearing in the bud, one would have to have been actively promoting antinatalism to the immediate descendants of Homo Erectus. The day we became Homo sapiens -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- was the day you should have been out and about preaching antinatalism. Now with 7.2 billion people, it is just too late. It is impossible to convince 7.2 billion people of ANYTHING. — Bitter Crank
Descental spirit. Not ancestral. Otherwise, correct.So here you are with the first humans, who naturally think of you as the great ancestral spirit come to give them advice. — Marchesk
Do you convince them to not have kids knowing what's in store for the human race?
— Marchesk
Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago. — T Clark
I wasn't really quibbling with your thought experiment. It's just that, when I read it, it struck me that the whole anti-natalist argument is a product of our modern technological world. — T Clark
Descental spirit. Not ancestral. Otherwise, correct. — god must be atheist
Now here I think you have an excellent idea. Being the pinko commie I am, I naturally see capitalism as an evil system of continual expansion, an all-consuming juggernaut, moloch, gang of ravening thugs, etc. that subverts nature to its imperative for continually larger profits which turns out suffering by the megaton.
Capitalism manages to produce a good share of the suffering to which antinatalists object. When will you become a member of at least the Democratic Socialists of America? — Bitter Crank
1- Do I know my children would enjoy their life and find it worthwhile? No. — khaled
2- Would I mind if someone used any resource of mine (money, time, etc) without my consent to do something HE/SHE believes is worthwhile with it? Yes. — khaled
The basic principle is: it is wrong to act in a way that WILL risk harming someone in the future (for no good reason). — khaled
it is wrong to act in a way that WILL risk harming someone in the future (for no good reason) — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.