Arguments for or against anti-natalism depend upon one's ontological beliefs, particularly with respect to personal identity, personal continuity and other-minds. Different positions on these topics will lead to radically different conclusions regarding anti-natalism.

@khaled I like your arguments there. You may want to read some of my posts- most of which are on antinatalism. One major AN reason I see is the treadmill idea. You don't force someone on a treadmill they cannot get off of easily (suicide), even if a person eventually habituates or even identifies with the treadmill. In other words, you don't give challenges for people to overcome, even if people identify with the pain and challenges that were foisted upon them by being "granted" life. It's not a matter of whether someone eventually likes or identifies with something, but the fact that it was considered "good" to give them challenges to overcome in the first place. I know it is a weird notion to some, but I see it as an inherent bad to start challenges for other people. We should not be the arbiters that ensure others are overcoming challenges. That is essentially what we are doing, despite protestations to the contrary, as de facto, life has adversity of some kind. It is as if people (zombie-like in unison) are saying "but we NEED more people to overcome the challenges of life because we NEED more people to overcome the challenges of life because we NEED more people to overcome the challenges of life because we NEED more people to overcome the challenges of life".

What about the people who really want to have children? Aren't they affected by not having them? — Terrapin Station

There is no situation in which no person is harmed. But there is a situation in which harm is minimized and ceased altogether for humans.

The pain people may feel by not having children can easily by topped by the pain created by having children. One couple having children can lead to generations of harm to people and, animals etc.

I do not think you can have a coherent moral system which allows having children to be acceptable.

It undermines issues like not to harm and to respect consent.

My old brother has had over twenty years of debilitating illness that has left him paralysed and he has to communicate by blinking or slightly moving his head. It doesn't matter that parents did not intend this to happen. Illness and disability is always a risk and death is inevitable. I have also had a lifetime of problems

Parents can cause more harm, through their children having misfortune and illness, than your average criminal can,as well as through acceptable or hidden abuse.(For example my parents where abusive but will never be prosecuted for this)

It seems to be that most parents do not see themselves as responsible of the outcome of their child's life or of the state of the world.

I think death is a big problem for having children. I think death is the most inevitable of harms.

I think death can only be perceived as a benefit when one is in great suffering. But that is not a positive thing because the goodness of death in this scenario is reliant on the badness of life.

Nevertheless I believe no one knows what happens when we die. So anything could happen after death from personal oblivion to any kind of afterlife.

I think if someone ceases to exist after death then that is no benefit to them as they don't exist to benefit from it and it also makes their life pointless because they won't even know it happened.

I think it is continuing to exist (as we all are now being able to type on here) that brings any value to life. I don't value events that I can't remember and things can only effect me when i am alive.

If like many religious parents have believed there is a hell, then the awfulness of the afterlife would overwhelm whatever positive experience a person had. And my parents for one literally believe in hell and a lake of fire. People that believe in hell yet create children still in my mind are probably irrational/stupid but also sadistic.

Also I don't think reproducing is any kind of immortality because you and your offspring will die and infinitum. Most people want to die before their children but that means that you won't know exactly how your child died and they could have a horrible end. And ironically parents dying before their children has left millions of young orphans who have to fend for themselves.

Fair enough, but I'm simply pointing out that existence is zero sum. If you are in a position to grant a good life, then you can bring a being into existence that may potentially flourish. On the other hand, if you view existence as a negative, I fully encourage you to not procreate, as that would weigh heavily upon your conscience.

I get that you are trying to combat harm, but if the entity doesn't exist before you bring it into being, then you aren't in fact harming anything. You are granting it the potential to feel positive and negative experiences, i.e. life. The alternative is absolute nothingness, so it's just a balancing act.

Is art ethical? Crafting positive and negative images, granting the potential for enjoyment and disturbance, intending for the love but preparing for hate, it's a lot like bringing life into the world, and I don't think it's rational to judge any individual life until the work is finished, like letting an artist get into their groove and witnessing their eventual portfolio after they are finished.

Wow Andrew, you flew in there before I could finish.

I was responding to khaled, but I'm on my phone and can't quite figure out the quoting mechanic.

There is no situation in which no person is harmed. But there is a situation in which harm is minimized and ceased altogether for humans.

The pain people may feel by not having children can easily by topped by the pain created by having children. One couple having children can lead to generations of harm to people and, animals etc. — Andrew4Handel

I was just pointing out that it's not the case that no one might be harmed when no one has kids.

You've pointed out before that the "calculus" you'd use simply ignores the "pleasure" side of the equation. So sure, if you do that, what you're saying follows. But of course, many people aren't going to adopt that calculus, and they will figure in pleasure, too.

There is no situation in which no person is harmed. But there is a situation in which harm is minimized and ceased altogether for humans.

The pain people may feel by not having children can easily by topped by the pain created by having children. One couple having children can lead to generations of harm to people and, animals etc.
— Andrew4Handel

I was just pointing out that it's not the case that no one might be harmed when no one has kids.

You've pointed out before that the "calculus" you'd use simply ignores the "pleasure" side of the equation. So sure, if you do that, what you're saying follows. But of course, many people aren't going to adopt that calculus, and they will figure in pleasure, too. — Terrapin Station

And further many people do not value just in terms of pleasure and pain. Most life, as far as I can see, in humans and elsewhere, decides with great passion to protect their lives, even if they are tough lives. They confirm over and over that they want life for other reasons: meaning, expression of self, curiosity, some subtler underlying passion. So to evaluate in terms of pain and pleasure alone means that antinatalists are deciding how we all should evaluate life, despite how we do evaluate life which is more complicated. Any antinatalist is risking that his or her rhetoric will be effective and manyr or even all future human lives do not come to be. How can they take the risk that this is imposing their values on what would have been future life that cannot consent to these values being applied. (I realize that the consent of the not yet existent is a tricky thing, but since the ant-natalists often talk in those terms, they have to live with the downside of this for their act of arguing for anti-natalism also.) Risk abounds.

Yes, but the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which their children are harmed. For the obvious reason that their children will also really want children. Really wanting children is a SUBSET of the harm the child will be projected to if you have him. So although those parents are harmed, in the face of what the harm they propose inflicting to deal with their own harm it is nothing.

So to evaluate in terms of pain and pleasure alone means that antinatalists are deciding how we all should evaluate life — Coben

Replace "Pain" with "deteriorating state of affairs" and "pleasure" with "improving state of affairs" and all of the antinatalist arguments on this thread will still make sense, however you interpret what deteriorating or improving means. That should tell you something. In fact, I explicitly did this in my reply to you but it looks like you haven't read it (sorry it was that long but most of the points you're making now have been addressed in it)

How can they take the risk that this is imposing their values on what would have been future life that cannot consent to these values being applied — Coben

Hey, did I give you consent NOT to give me money? I don't remember doing that. How dare you not give me money then? Isn't that risking imposing your value of private property on me?

Again, if anything (future life or current) is somehow asking you for something that would improve their state of affairs, you don't have to give it. However you owe them not deteriorating their state of affairs no matter what.

If you are in a position to grant a good life, then you can bring a being into existence that may potentially flourish — Neir

Keyword: CAN grant a good life. It is not guaranteed. If there was some way to measure with absolute certainty that your child will find life worthwhile I'd say procreation is ethical. But with a risk it is something else entirely. Imagine someone stealing your bank account to invest all of your life saving in a company that CAN succeed. Would you permit that? I highly doubt it. Now imagine if they used the excuse: I tried to call you but you weren't available at the time so I proceeded to invest without asking you. Would that be moral? Especially if you've never met this person before and you have no idea how their values and risk assessments differ from yours? I'm hoping you're catching onto the analogy

Is art ethical? Crafting positive and negative images, granting the potential for enjoyment and disturbance, intending for the love but preparing for hate — Neir

Yes because you don't HAVE to look at art. You consent to looking at it when you enter the art exhibit or look it up. If, however, a crazed artist staples your eyes open and forces you to look at his art I'd say that's unethical yes. Procreation is like the latter case not the former. I don't care how good the art CAN be, you can't show it to other people forcefully. Creating art and displaying it is a different deal because you don't force anyone to look at it

Replace "Pain" with "deteriorating state of affairs" and "pleasure" with "improving state of affairs" — khaled

There is a vast range of values that can be hidden in deteriorate and improve.

Hey, did I give you consent NOT to give me money? I don't remember doing that. How dare you not give me money then? Isn't that risking imposing your value of private property on me?

Again, if anything (future life or current) is somehow asking you for something that would improve their state of affairs, you don't have to give it. However you owe them not deteriorating their state of affairs no matter what. — khaled

And more of your values. You keep repeating your values as if they are obviously universal/objective ones. That's why I felt we are at an impass and now address other people.

And your posts made me feel bad without my consent. :razz:

No but seriously. I don't see where you and I can go forward. To me it is an impass. To you, you are demonstrated it. I think your demonstration includes value assumptions and also not noticing risks that you take for others. IOW you continue to exist and take risks of doing harm or doing things that will lead to the deteriorating state of affairs of others without their consent yourself. You allow yourself this but not others, both when arguing for antinatalism, but also in general. And then you have an axiomatic moral that one cannot do anything that might lead to deterioration for someone. And present this as if it was a fact. And that's not even getting into whether values can be objective. Even if they can be, i see no demonstration that your axiom is the one that is objective. You thnk you have demonstrated this or do not need to. You think that your continued existence in general and the specfic acts of promoting antinatalism in general do not involve hypocrisy around risking deterioration in others without their consent. I disagree.

So, there we are. I mean, you do present a more nuanced case than I have encountered. I think it is the best one I have seen on the internet in discussion forums. I am not making some blanket rejection of you as a discussion partner. You're a smart cookie and treated me with respect even if perhaps we both came off a bit cranky here and there.

But I can't see going forward. I see repetition without advance.

Yes, but the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which their children are harmed. — khaled

How would we measure such things?

For the obvious reason that their children will also really want children. — khaled

There's no way to know this for any person until the person is around to ask them.

You're not assuming that everyone's harm in something is equal are you?

And further many people do not value just in terms of pleasure and pain. Most life, as far as I can see, in humans and elsewhere, decides with great passion to protect their lives, even if they are tough lives. They confirm over and over that they want life for other reasons: meaning, expression of self, curiosity, some subtler underlying passion. So to evaluate in terms of pain and pleasure alone means that antinatalists are deciding how we all should evaluate life, despite how we do evaluate life which is more complicated. Any antinatalist is risking that his or her rhetoric will be effective and manyr or even all future human lives do not come to be. How can they take the risk that this is imposing their values on what would have been future life that cannot consent to these values being applied. (I realize that the consent of the not yet existent is a tricky thing, but since the ant-natalists often talk in those terms, they have to live with the downside of this for their act of arguing for anti-natalism also.) Risk abounds. — Coben

Good points.

How would we measure such things? — Terrapin Station

You don't need to measure in this case. The harm of "wanting to have children" HAS TO BE greater than the harm of "wanting to have children" + every other harm. It doesn't matter how you choose to measure it

There's no way to know this for any person until the person is around to ask them. — Terrapin Station

But it would be very unreasonable to assume that the desire for having children for one particular parent is so great that one can conclusively say it will be greater than all the suffering his child will ever experience don't you agree?

In fact, the fact that you can't know that a child to suffer until they are around to ask them is a central argument for antinatalism. You know there is a chance that your child will be severely harmed AND that he will hate it AND that he will not employ some morality that helps make meaning out of it despite your best efforts don't you? Then why do you take the risk when you could just adopt a child if you so want to be a parent. Also I seem to have lost where you were trying to go with this argument. Are you seriously suggesting that the reason having children is ethical is because the harm to the parents outweighs the harm to the child in every case?

Good points. — Terrapin Station

If you think they are good points please read my first reply to Coben and point out faults with it if you find them. I explicitly try to avoid a pleasure pain analysis in my replies and if I still use it just replace "pleasure" with "improving state of affairs" and pain with "deteriorating state of affairs" however you interpret that to be. If you think finding meaning in your life and pursuing it despite the pain is improving the state of affairs go right ahead. It does not dent the argument of antinatalism in any way. That is because you don't know how your CHILD will interpret improving and deteriorating states of affairs, so it doesn't matter how you or others interpret them that is no excuse to risk creating someone that might interpret them in ways that cause him severe suffering.

You don't need to measure in this case. The harm of "wanting to have children" HAS TO BE greater than the harm of "wanting to have children" + every other harm. It doesn't matter how you choose to measure it — khaled

Did you mean that the other way around? At any rate, what I was questioning re quantification was what I quoted: "the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which their children are harmed." That's different than the "plus" statement.

But it would be very unreasonable to assume that the desire for having children for one particular parent is so great that one can conclusively say it will be greater than all the suffering his child will ever experience don't you agree? — khaled

I've not made any statements with respect to quantifying such things aside from asking how they could be quantified.

You know there is a chance that your child will be severely harmed AND that he will hate it — khaled

I'd say those two things are inseparable if they're not the same thing, by the way. But sure, there's a chance of that. I already commented on that above, by the way.

AND that he will not employ some morality that helps make meaning out of it — khaled

This part I don't think I get, though. Insofar as I get it, I don't think there are humans who don't employ morality or meaning, but maybe you have something in mind that's not clear to me.

Then why do you take the risk when you could just adopt a child if you so want to be a parent — khaled

Wait, but people have to be giving birth in order to adopt kids. With antinatalism, no one would be giving birth. At any rate, I'm fine with either option folks want to choose.

Also I seem to have lost where you were trying to go with this argument. Are you seriously suggesting that the reason having children is ethical is because the harm to the parents outweighs the harm to the child in every case? — khaled

I didn't say anything like that and I wasn't making an argument per se. You had said that not having kids doesn't harm anyone. I merely pointed out that that's not categorically the case.

It does not dent the argument of antinatalism in any way. That is because you don't know how your CHILD will interpret improving and deteriorating states of affairs, so it doesn't matter how you or others interpret them that is no excuse to risk creating someone that might interpret them in ways that cause him severe suffering. — khaled

It doesn't seem like you realize that there's no way to make this stuff not subjective. That there are no correct arguments when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Did you mean that the other way around? — Terrapin Station

Yea sorry

"the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which their children are harmed." That's different than the "plus" statement. — Terrapin Station

How so? They sound like the same statement to me

I'd say those two things are inseparable — Terrapin Station

Well some people interpret "harm" as "pain" in an almost physical sense then go on to say "but antinatalism only looks at this from a hedonistic perspective". The reason I added "and they'll hate it" is to clarify that this isn't one of those people striving for a "meaning" or a "calling" despite the pain and so see it as justified. By hate it I mean suffering that is not justified by any greater meaning

This part I don't think I get, though. Insofar as I get it, I don't think there are humans who don't employ morality or meaning, but maybe you have something in mind that's not clear to me. — Terrapin Station

Again, I was being meticulous as I keep hearing people say that antinatalism makes sense only to a hedonist which is not true. My point with saying "and will hate it and will not employ a morality to give it greater meaning" is still just to clarify that I'm NOT talking about people struggling with hard lives that find them fulfilling. I'm talking about people that just have hard lives and have no moral code or anything that can give them meaning to justify their painful existence. The fact that your child can be one of those people despite your best effort is the risk I'm talking about.

Wait, but people have to be giving birth in order to adopt kids. With antinatalism, no one would be giving birth. At any rate, I'm fine with either option folks want to choose. — Terrapin Station

Yes I know. I'm also realistic and I know antinatalism will not be implemented any time soon. In which case adoption is an option. It's the lesser of two evils. It's best never to have a child in the first place but it's better to care for a child that has been born rather than let them fend for themselves

I didn't say anything like that and I wasn't making an argument per se. You had said that not having kids doesn't harm anyone. I merely pointed out that that's not categorically the case. — Terrapin Station

Ok. I agree. But can we agree that having children harms the child SIGNIFICANTLY more than it harms the parent?

It doesn't seem like you realize that there's no way to make this stuff not subjective. That there are no correct arguments when it comes to this sort of stuff. — Terrapin Station

I know this stuff is subjective, however I do not believe anyone on this forum is the type of subject that would disagree with antinatalism, no matter the morality they employ. The only 2 premises antinatlism requires to make sense are (and I haven't seen anyone employ a system without these in this discussion so far):
1- doing X to someone is bad and doing Y to someone is good
2- You do not have to do Y but you do have to avoid X

It doesn't matter what X and Y are but so far I haven't seen anyone that challenges those premises. Then the argument goes:

3- Having children is doing both Y and X to the child (unless you employ a morality where EVERYTHING in life is good but I don't think anyone here does)
4- Per 2, doing Y is optional but not doing X is paramount. Thus, one should not have children to ensure one does not do X. Not doing Y is not a problem

This keeps getting longer and longer and I hate when that happens, so let's do one thing at a time. I do want to get to the rest, but I don't want posts to keep getting longer and have to keep addressing more and more issues.

How so? They sound like the same statement to me — khaled

??

So, say we have Jane, who really wants to have children, and who suffers because she can't have children for whatever reason.

But let's say that either in some other possible world, or in the same world where something has changed so that Jane can now have a kid, she does so, and for some reason the kid suffers.

"the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which their children are harmed"

So that's saying that the degree to which Jane is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which her child is harmed. That's a comparison between Jane and how much she is harmed on the one hand, and her child and how much the child is harmed on the other hand. We'd need some quantification method to compare the two, to compare the amount of their suffering.

The other option is to instead say "the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which those people are harmed PLUS the degree to which their children are harmed."

In that case we dont need a quantification method. We simply know that x is less than x + y, where both x and y are some positive, non-zero number. (Of course, we don't know that it's "much" less, but we can ignore that part.)

I’m always fascinated with anti-natalism discussions, because in many ways the perspective on life seem diametrically opposite to my own, and yet in other ways I cannot help but agree with your arguments.

I want to start by saying that what you choose to do with this life you have and your capacity to bring children into the world or not is entirely up to you. Personally I have two beautiful teenagers - they bring so much joy and fear, challenges and rewards to my life, and as far as I can tell they value the opportunity to make something of their own life, regardless of how it pans out.

Having said that, I recognise that suffering is a fundamental part of life, and that our tendency to work so hard at avoiding experiences of suffering for ourselves and for others has in fact contributed much more suffering to the world as a result. Being aware of how you potentially contribute to the suffering of others, and taking what steps you can in your own lives to reduce your contribution to suffering has to be seen as admirable in my book.

Keyword: CAN grant a good life. It is not guaranteed. If there was some way to measure with absolute certainty that your child will find life worthwhile I'd say procreation is ethical. But with a risk it is something else entirely. Imagine someone stealing your bank account to invest all of your life saving in a company that CAN succeed. Would you permit that? I highly doubt it. Now imagine if they used the excuse: I tried to call you but you weren't available at the time so I proceeded to invest without asking you. Would that be moral? Especially if you've never met this person before and you have no idea how their values and risk assessments differ from yours? I'm hoping you're catching onto the analogy — khaled

This analogy is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s all that effective in getting your point across. To be honest, I would be furious that someone distrusted my capacity to choose what to do with my own life savings. You’ve called it ‘stealing’ - I’m assuming the investment was made in MY name, not their own? Despite the audacity of the act, I would nevertheless have a vested interest in that company from that point on.

‘Would you permit that?’ - this is the wrong question to ask. The deed is done. I can yell and scream and jump up and down at them, try to have them jailed (even though they’ve made no profit themselves from the act). I get that what they did was wrong, but now I have a choice: pull the investment (at whatever cost), or ride it out. A lot would depend on how the investment faired in the short term, but from this point on, control of the money is back in MY hands. Perhaps I would do what I could to ensure my investment in this company had the best chance of success. Perhaps I could embark on a mission to prevent this from ever happening to someone else again.

I’m not sure this is quite the same as bringing a child into the world, though. Can I try a different analogy?

Let’s say that your mother calls you and tells you that the money she planned to build up for your inheritance has been decimated in a financial downturn. She’d hoped to have a million dollars by now, but all that’s left is $150,000, and because of the way it was invested it might take a lengthy court case to even get hold of that. Would you wish she’d never intended to give you any money at all? Would you accuse her of an immoral act? Would you spread the word that it’s a bad idea to plan for your kids’ inheritance?

1- doing X to someone is bad and doing Y to someone is good
2- You do not have to do Y but you do have to avoid X

It doesn't matter what X and Y are but so far I haven't seen anyone that challenges those premises. — khaled

I do.

I like your arguments in favour of antinatalism. They are precise, clear and valid.
Not having children is an ethical personal choice based on a valid set of premises - I like that a lot better than the rather fuzzy preconception that having children is just "the natural thing to do".
And if all humans make that choice and humanity will cease to exist - well, then that's a consequence of free will.
Humanity will not endure eternal anyways, and this would be a rather dignified and elegant way to go. (I don't think it will happen... dignified and elegant are rather rare traits among humans)

I personally don't have children, and won't have any. But it's a more pragmatic and situational choice. I see no need to add to an already too large population count on earth. And anyway, my wife doesn't want children and my marriage is vastly more important to me than the theoretical joys of parenthood.

That being said, I promised to challenge your premises, right?
So here goes:
1- doing X to someone is bad and doing Y to someone is good
2- You do not have to do Y but you do have to avoid X

The Antinatalist position reminds me of ascetic Jainism... just refrain from an action altogether.
It's nice to have such clearly defined ethics, but I don't think they work that well in the real world.

Consider your statement "you do have to avoid X" - does that only count for future generations?
Or are you buying fair-trade goods exclusively as to avoid harm to exploited workers? Do you consume only your fair share of energy and water, so that you are not robbing fellow humans of necessary resources? Avoiding harm to others is not that easily done...

The "not having to do good" is another one I don't agree with. I believe that helping and caring for other human beings is as much a duty as the "do no harm" part.
We are not all independent entities, living our lives largely disconnected from each other - in which case the "avoid to harm" is all we need for a peaceful and ethical existence. Instead, we live in close relation. From the social bonds of friends and family, to our social circles, our nations, and even people on the other side of the globe: with all of our choices and actions we affect each other.
I think we need to acknowledge this and take responsibility for each other. Not doing harm is only one side. If you are in a position to help and don't do it, that's equally unethical.

And very often it's not even clear to us if a certain action is going to do harm or do good in the end.
For example: Buying shoes for a homeless person in my village: Good, isn't it? But buying cheap shoes supports those companies that produce shoes under horrible working conditions in Bangladesh, thus I'm perpetuating the harm done to other people there.
Not to mention issues of consent... if I a bring an unconscious person to a hospital, am I doing good? Or am I disrespecting their free will, as they are currently unable to give consent, and maybe they don't want medical treatment? Well, as long as I cannot obtain consent I will just have to go with my best guess... In daily life, ethical choices are horribly fuzzy and we constantly need to make decisions without having all the necessary data.

So I would personally put the premises like this:
1- doing X to someone is bad and doing Y to someone is good
2- You must try to do Y and you must try to avoid X

I recognize that it is both very difficult to truly avoid harming others, and to always obtain proper consent from those affected by your actions. And still I would not recommend inaction as being the solution but rather that everyone do their best and try to come out with a positive balance in the end.

Having a child means bringing some harm to that child. True. Having a child, it is impossible to acquire prior consent from them. True.
Still, if you have carefully considered the matter and estimate that your child will appreciate life more that he or she will abhor the related suffering, then it is an ethical choice to have a child.

But all of this ameliorating (helping, putting a bandaid on, etc.) can be avoided by simply not having a new person in the first place. Done, presto. No one exists to be harmed (or need help from being harmed), and no one exists to be deprived of good. Done.

Perhaps I could embark on a mission to prevent this from ever happening to someone else again. — Possibility

Indeed that's what antinatalists are doing. I'd like to add, that it is ALWAYS bad to make challenges for others, when no challenges needed to be encountered in the first place. If no one exists, no one exists to need any challenges to make them "better, fitter, more rounded people". But that is not the case with birth. Birth brings people into the world, from essentially nothing, and THEN has them have to become better, fitter, well rounded people. People need to be challenged once born, some might say, otherwise XYZ. That is one claim. But in this situation, people are actually saying, "People need to be BORN IN THE FIRST PLACE to be challenged, made fitter, be well rounded". That is where the category error lies. Now you are putting a premium value on challenge on behalf of someone else which some might say is pseudo-sadistic (not torture, but still putting an obstacle in place on behalf of someone else who then has to endure or deal with it).

There are just so many errors like this made by those defending procreation. They assume people NEED to experience XYZ, when in reality, no one needs to experience anything prior to birth. It is a value that the parent just wants to see play out in someone else. But why this needs to be "played out" begs the question other than the parent just wants this to occur. No one needs nothing before birth. No one needs to experience anything in the first place. I don't get why people don't get that.

In that case we dont need a quantification method. We simply know that x is less than x + y, where both x and y are some positive, non-zero number. (Of course, we don't know that it's "much" less, but we can ignore that part.) — Terrapin Station

I would say this is not bad model there, but you are also missing that it is on behalf of someone else, and that part is central to @khaled's point. It is not just straight up hedonistic calculus as you are implying here.

Fair enough, but I'm simply pointing out that existence is zero sum. If you are in a position to grant a good life, then you can bring a being into existence that may potentially flourish. On the other hand, if you view existence as a negative, I fully encourage you to not procreate, as that would weigh heavily upon your conscience. — Neir

One of Khaled's ideas I think here, is that you can never know what the child might think of life, whatever circumstances you are experiencing or are projecting for the child. Collateral damage in this case of being off by a little is not just like the collateral damage of some minor contingent event- it is a whole life time someone will have to live out that did not want to live it out.

You are granting it the potential to feel positive and negative experiences, i.e. life. The alternative is absolute nothingness, so it's just a balancing act. — Neir

And this is an important point. Nothingness is not a negative or positive. Nothing matters to nothing. There is no mattering even. As such, there is no deprivation for any actual person happening in the case of no-person existing (that very well could have).

Is art ethical? Crafting positive and negative images, granting the potential for enjoyment and disturbance, intending for the love but preparing for hate, it's a lot like bringing life into the world, and I don't think it's rational to judge any individual life until the work is finished, like letting an artist get into their groove and witnessing their eventual portfolio after they are finished. — Neir

I'm guessing you are saying life is like art- you never know what you're going to get. Great, but don't force others into it, prior to birth, there was no actual person deprived of this great "art" that just NEEDS to be experienced and "finished".

I can understand the opinion, and I personally wouldn't bring a child into this world, as I don't believe I could provide a suitably positive environment to outweigh the negatives they might experience.

However, I still disagree on principle with preventing further births, as I don't believe a person is having suffering inflicted upon them. They are simply having the neutrality of the void polarized. Pleasure and pain are just two sides of a coin, and I consider them equal on a whole.

After the entity exists, any further action toward them would of course have to be either neutral or positive, unless consent is given, which I feel is just a natural progression of ethics in life. The reason I brought up art is that I still consider the act of creating to be a potential neutral thing.

Don't intend to do harm, and a neutral action remains neutral. However, with the way you see it, any procreation is by its nature, harmful, so I suppose you should avoid it, for ethical reasons.

I would be upset with someone taking the fruits of my labors, even if it was for a perceived positive reason, but that's because I already have a direction I'm going with life. I wouldn't expect to be that furious if I just started living at that moment. I would just be confused, since I would have little understanding of the positives or negatives.

That's why education is a useful tool. After starting off, shaping an existence out of genetic mishmash, the reasonable and moral thing to do, in this modern world, would be to work on educating that being. You have the greater potential to direct its view, and therefore its perceived pains and pleasures, in a useful and positive way.

Also, I don't really consider death to be such a great negative, since it just actualizes everything back to zero. It's just the end of the journey, the evening out of the highs and lows.

I think unintended consequences are a serious problem for having children.

Take extreme examples like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot etc. Were all there ancestors terrible? That's unlikely. Did any of there ancestors consider that one of there descendants could be a mass murderer?

Once you replicate your genes there is an extent to which it is out of your control. Having these terrible descendants is statistically unlikely but still you can give rise to a huge amount of descendants with all sorts of issues out of your control or concern. So it is not just a parent child issue.

Also your children are part of an exploitative economic system where they will cause and or be victims of exploitation of others such as sweat shop factory workers

So that's saying that the degree to which Jane is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which her child is harmed. That's a comparison between Jane and how much she is harmed on the one hand, and her child and how much the child is harmed on the other hand. We'd need some quantification method to compare the two, to compare the amount of their suffering. — Terrapin Station

No we wouldn't need some way to compare the two because: Jane's child will ALSO want to have children presumably to the same or similar extent

So one can say:
Jane's suffering due to not having children < Her child suffering due to not having children + Her child suffering due to other reasons

or x < y+z where x and y are very similar

But also something else: Jane's child is also likely to have children or to face the same dilemma.

So I think we can at least agree that:

Jane's suffering due to not having children <<<<< hundreds or thousands of people's lifetimes full of suffering

The only exception would be someone who has some sort of mental illness that makes it so that he/she suffers MORE from not having children than his child is likely going to suffer in his ENTIRE LIFETIME which I am not sure is a thing and in which case he/she can still use his/her condition to adopt someone means even that condition doesn't work as an excuse for having children