Either you are being purposely evasive of what I have brought up as a consequence of your own argument, or you are really not understanding how much this has to do with it. Either way, I'm not sure how to help you more than the very simple way I just explained it. — schopenhauer1

Knock knock--hello? What did I type that you think has anything to do with this? An intelligent response would quote something I typed that you believe has anything to do with the issue of potential kids being deprived of anything.

Ok, you have to be freakn trolling me right now. It's about your CONSENT argument. If you want a quote here it is:

Re antinatalism, it's not an issue of consent, because when we're talking about nonexistent people we're not talking about someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent. We need an existent person for that. — Terrapin Station

And what the fuck does that have to do with talking about nonexistent kids being deprived of anything?

And what the fuck does that have to do with talking about nonexistent kids being deprived of anything? — Terrapin Station

Knock knock..hello..Because with your SAME LOGIC of NON-EXISTENT people, we can say that there is no harm to any actual person who is NOT born, but there may be CONSIDERABLE harm to those who ARE born... I'm using your very argument about NON-EXISTENT people to make an antinatalist claim, ala Benatar's asymmetry argument.

Knock knock..hello..Because with your SAME LOGIC of NON-EXISTENT people, we can say that there is no harm to any actual person who is NOT born, but there may be CONSIDERABLE harm to those who ARE born... I'm using your very argument about NON-EXISTENT people to make an antinatalist claim, ala Benatar's asymmetry argument. — schopenhauer1

That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I'm typing. I'm not saying anything even remotely resembling the notion of nonexistent people being deprived of anything. If you want to repeat the same garbage over and over don't use my posts to shit post in response like that. How about commenting on the actual content of my posts instead. Don't waste my time with the same old crap that has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I'm typing. I'm not saying anything even remotely resembling the notion of nonexistent people being deprived of anything. — Terrapin Station

Then I can't help you.. Keep on missing the point.

As I just added above: If you want to repeat the same garbage over and over don't use my posts to shit-post in response like that. How about commenting on the actual content of my posts instead. Don't waste my time with the same old crap that has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

I don't want to enable your OCD nonsense. Comment on the content of my posts.

Antinatalists need to man up or vagina up (vaginas are tough). If they can’t through strength of will, then they should seek professional help.

No one is going to stop procreation anyway.

As I just added above: If you want to repeat the same garbage over and over don't use my posts to shit post in response like that. How about commenting on the actual content of my posts instead. Don't waste my time with the same old crap that has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. — Terrapin Station

Dude, I am.

I already said the point I'm getting at.. but I can walk you through it slowly, and in your case, in a circular holding pattern kind of way, where you will not see the forest for the trees of the argument, but here we go, baby-steps.

1) You think consent does not apply to a non-existent person, correct? It would be a category mistake or something of that sort, correct?

I already said the point I'm getting at.. but I can walk you through it slowly, and in your case, in a circular holding pattern kind of way, where you will not see the forest for the trees of the argument, but here we go, baby-steps.

1) You think consent does not apply to a non-existent person, correct? It would be a category mistake or something of that sort, correct? — schopenhauer1

Yes, and I said nothing even remotely approaching the notion of nonexistent people being deprived of anything. So bringing that up in response to my posts means you're ignoring the content of my posts to start repeating the same prepared talking points for the thousandth time. You're using my post as an excuse to ODCishly launch into your telemarketing script that we could all repeat verbatim.

Yes, and I said nothing even remotely approaching the notion of nonexistent people being deprived of anything. So bringing that up in response to my posts means you're ignoring the content of my posts to start repeating the same prepared talking points for the thousandth time. — Terrapin Station

But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingly pro-natalist if one focuses on consent) actually implies antinatalist conclusions (if one focuses on the fact that no actual person loses from not being born). It is not a tenuous connection either, but at the very heart of the logic whereby your objection is being used. So what you think shuts down one argument actually facilitates a much stronger argument that is in favor of antinatalism.

But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingly pro-natalist if one focuses on consent) actually implies antinatalist conclusions (if one focuses on the fact that no actual person loses from not being born). It is not a tenuous connection either, but at the very heart of the logic whereby your objection is being used. So what you think shuts down one argument actually facilitates a much stronger argument that is in favor of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

It simply takes consent off the table. So this means that neither antinatalist nor natalist arguments could be able to bring up consent. So this means that the only issue is harm.

And what anti-natalist is not risking the harm of other people every day? One can certainly avoid driving. But even pedestrians can cause accidents, voting could contribute to the next world war, selling or helping produce a wide range of products could cause harm, buying a wide range of products can and likely does contribute to companies that harm someone. (and these risks are often for those who have not consented, but then, consent is off the table, if both sides agree on that)

But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingly pro-natalist if one focuses on consent) actually implies antinatalist conclusions (if one focuses on the fact that no actual person loses from not being born). It is not a tenuous connection either, but at the very heart of the logic whereby your objection is being used. So what you think shuts down one argument actually facilitates a much stronger argument that is in favor of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

That would only be relevant if someone were saying something about depriving nonexistent persons of something.

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. — schopenhauer1

You speak as though the way you see things is the way things are, period. So, are you saying that anti-natalism should be enforced by law? If you had the power, would you enforce anti-natalist law?

That would only be relevant if someone were saying something about depriving nonexistent persons of something. — Terrapin Station

It's relevant when discussing nonexistent or potential people.

No I see antinatilism like veganism, advocate but not enforce. It's a matter of personal ethical understanding and philosophy.

And what anti-natalist is not risking the harm of other people every day? One can certainly avoid driving. But even pedestrians can cause accidents, voting could contribute to the next world war, selling or helping produce a wide range of products could cause harm, buying a wide range of products can and likely does contribute to companies that harm someone. (and these risks are often for those who have not consented, but then, consent is off the table, if both sides agree on that) — Coben

I actually dont think consent is off the table, but that's another argument. Right now, I'm merely establishing how nonexistent people implies something about deprivation, similarly to how consent is claimed to be a category error.

As far as consent being off the table for circumstances where someone already exist, as your examples are, no I dint think it's off the table.

The point is about risking harm on behalf if others. ALL harm can be prevented if no one is born AND no actual person is deprived by not being born.

It's relevant when discussing nonexistent or potential people. — schopenhauer1

If anyone is making or in any way implying the claim you're addressing. Otherwise it's "Hey, here's a chance to do my telemarketing script mantra again."

The point is about risking harm on behalf if others. ALL harm can be prevented if no one is born AND no actual person is deprived by not being born. — schopenhauer1

That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, but sure, there are no risks for anyone if no one exists. So if you were only concerned with preventing risks for some reason, that would be something you'd focus on.

Alright. Explain this one then. Why did you say planting a bomb to explode later in a public park is wrong? It meets (a), because there is an intention to kill, you're not sure who you're killing though. (C) is obviously met because the cause of death is exploding. But then (d) isn't met is it? Who exactly is the something or someone capable of granting consent in the bomb example? You don't know who will be there at the park do you? So if I set the bomb to trigger at a random time, it's totally fine because consent is not an issue in this case?

If consent is not available it should be assumed that it is not given. — khaled

So by this logic, we can do nothing, as everything we do must first require consent. It is wrong for me to pat someone on the back until I obtain consent from him, in case I inadvertently harm him. It is wrong for me to flush the toilet in my house, in case I inadvertently drown a mosquito.

Sorry - I’m trying to understand this, really I am. I get that consent is an important factor here. But I get a sense of infinite regress - in order to gain consent, I must gain consent to ask for consent.... Otherwise I should just assume that no consent is given, and therefore not act.

As I mentioned in another thread about consent, I think it’s more the issue of exercising rights with no regard for responsibility that is causing unwarranted harm. When parents exercise their right (or some sense of misguided obligation) to bring children into the world for whatever reason, they regularly do so without an understanding of the full extent of their responsibility - not just to that child, but to the world at large. Guilt that our children did not turn out as we’d hoped is regularly expressed and then absolved in society. It’s not your fault that your kid is depressed and wishes they’d never been born - there’s something wrong with them. You did what you could, it’s not easy being both a parent and an individual. That’s okay: you look after you. They’re an adult now, they have to be responsible for their own life. I’ve often lamented that people need a license to be a parent, like they do to drive a car...

ALL harm can be prevented if no one is born AND no actual person is deprived by not being born. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree with this, but i'l focus on: you are not eliminating your harm. Here you are at a bird's eye view looking at an 'if everyone agrees scenario'. I am looking at antinatalists in situ and seeing they are risking harm in the ways I mentioned and more. If they want to argue this in consequentialist terms - iow it is worth that risk to prevent greater harm - then they open the door for people risking harm in pronatalist ways.

It also assumes that we must look at values via harm.
This 1) presumes objective morals. It is simply a fact that one must avoid harm. That is THE CRITERION 2) begs whether this value should be one that rules over our choices amongst the many options available. 3) It also seems to run counter to the values most people have, since most people are willing to risk harm to others and also would prefer to live even if their lives include suffering or harm. I see almost no one who thinks they must eliminate all the potential harm they might create. Now this could be read as an argument ad populum, but in the absence of objective morals it carries weight what both antinatalists themselves and people in general are willing to risk, despite the former thinking we should never do this. It carries weight because the antinatalist is forming a position to, in a sense protect people who do not exist. But since the odds seem to me enormous that these people will, like people now not share the anti-natalists values, both about having children and also that removing potential harm is the value that trumps all others, there is an inherent disrespect even to the values of those who could come to be. I can see anti-natalism as a personal choice. I can't see why the anti-natalist values should dominate all other values. And I cannot see how an anti-natalist lives up his or her own philosophy, given that they risk harming others all the time. And since their values may be wrong - if there are objective values - they are risking causing a catastrophy, should they be successful if all future human life never comes into existence. yes, if the only or must value is not causing any harm is objectively GOOD, then preventing all future humans would be ok. But there's a risk you are not right about what is objectively good, but you take that risk and try to change the world. Unless you think you are infallible about such things, why do you get to take such an enormous risk along with all the day to day risks you take around harming others?

1) presumes objective morals. It is simply a fact that one must avoid harm. That is THE CRITERION — Coben

I do not see why an ethics regarding procreation, shouldn't involve harm, being that it is someone else's life that is in question here. In the case of the procreational decision, certain considerations are at play which are not at play when someone is already born. Starting a life has different considerations than continuing or navigating a life already started. The asymmetry in regards to harms vs. goods comes into play when making a decision to start a life.

Once it is seen that no actual person is deprived of anything prior to birth, any premium put on a value other than harm (to experience accomplishment and love, for example) would not matter for anyone but the parent putting a premium on this value being carried out. The actual person that the hopes for these values to be carried out for, is not missing anything- it is simply the parent wanting to see some outcome, and using the child as the vehicle for this outcome. To not consider harm, but rather consider some other value, would be using people to fulfill one's own desires. Harm is the only consideration that matters at this point prior to birth. It can even be characterized as callous and sadistic to overlook harm for any other value, when there is no negative consequence to an actual person prior to birth (except the parent's own desires..but again, the negative affect on the parent, is not an ethical matter so much as playing with other people's lives that de facto will be harmed, which now involves another person's life- and a lifetime of possible collateral damage). No person actually feels loss of not "getting to experience" life's other values of XYZ (love, accomplishment, flow-states, friendships, etc.).

It also seems to run counter to the values most people have, since most people are willing to risk harm to others and also would prefer to live even if their lives include suffering or harm. — Coben

Again, you are ignoring the a priori logic. No one is in a locked room saying "but I could be living!!". All that matters in the procreational decision, due to the glaring asymmetry of negative/positive in respect to people who don't exist, without being sadistic by overlooking harm done to another person, is that you are not bringing a lifetime of the possibility and inevitability of harm to someone. That is to say, that you are not procreating.

But since the odds seem to me enormous that these people will, like people now not share the anti-natalists values, both about having children and also that removing potential harm is the value that trumps all others, there is an inherent disrespect even to the values of those who could come to be. — Coben

So, I could take the harder avenue and provide you theories that people can be harmed by life, but still identify it like a slave who may not mind their situation but is definitely harmed by their situation, but I'll simply take the easy road. I'll refer you to the thousands of posts I've made showing how we are harmed in very particular ways, despite our identifying with the very thing that harms us..

But let's talk the easy road. The easy road is that NO ONE will be deprived of ANYTHING prior to birth. Period. But SOMEONE will be harmed by being born. In light of non-existing people not being deprived of anything, the only consideration that matters here is the the lifetime of collateral damage of undue suffering and collateral damage. And no, there are no "people that want to be born" being put as hostages, as the asymmetry shows to respective non-existing people, they are not actually there to be deprived- nothing is deprived except the regret of the parent projecting a future child.

I can see anti-natalism as a personal choice. I can't see why the anti-natalist values should dominate all other values. — Coben

Because any other value besides harm to a potential child, would be using that child for a parent's X agenda and outcome they want to see carried out by that child. It is in a way playing with someone else's life for your agenda. I will be a broken record on this, because the logic dictates this- no actual person needs anything prior to birth. This is all the parent's agenda at this point- an agenda that most likely won't go the way the parent projected it anyways, and may be potentially very negative for the child at best (and if the child decides life was not worth it, even worse).

And I cannot see how an anti-natalist lives up his or her own philosophy, given that they risk harming others all the time. And since their values may be wrong - if there are objective values - they are risking causing a catastrophy, should they be successful if all future human life never comes into existence. yes, if the only or must value is not causing any harm is objectively GOOD, then preventing all future humans would be ok. But there's a risk you are not right about what is objectively good, but you take that risk and try to change the world. Unless you think you are infallible about such things, why do you get to take such an enormous risk along with all the day to day risks you take around harming others? — Coben

That is the thing, there is no risk with antinatalism. No person actually will be deprived of anything. We are not playing with other people's lives in antinatalism. ANY and ALL risks will ensue if someone is born, however. Once born, other considerations come into play, as the asymmetry of non-existing people is no longer part of the logic. It would be a category error to equate the two as using the same ethical logic in everyday life of those who already exist.

Alright. Explain this one then. Why did you say planting a bomb to explode later in a public park is wrong? — khaled

I didn't say that. You didn't understand that comment. That was an example of a consent issue that's not a direct action upon someone, but rather an indirect yet causally-peggable action that would be a consent issue once the bomb goes off and someone is significantly harmed by it.

In other words, the idea is that consent issues only arise with actions on or with other parties--we're ruling out observation, awareness, etc. as requiring consent. One's consent is not required for someone to wear sagging pants, for example, even though one might see the sagging pants and not at all like them. Or for another example, one's consent is moot for whether homosexual relationships are allowed, even though one might observe or be aware of them and think they're an abomination against God or whatever. We have to be talking about an action performed upon or with another person.

But it doesn't have to be a direct action--it doesn't have to be something where your body is literally touching their body. It can be indirect, however much the parties might be temporally and spatially separated. So, for example, you're not touching someone else when you shoot them. There's some temporal and spatial separation. The same thing goes for poisoning a water supply, planting a bomb, etc. But someone needs to actually be hurt for there to be a consent issue there AND there needs to be a causally-peggable chain back to your actions AND we need to be talking about entities normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

So I wasn't saying there was something wrong with merely planting a bomb. I wasn't saying anything about risks or potentials or anything like that. I was covering the base where someone isn't literally touching another person's body, but where there's an agent capable of consenting to things done to their body where there's a causally-demonstrable chain back to someone else.

Who exactly is the something or someone capable of granting consent in the bomb example? — khaled

The person in the location where the bomb goes off. That would be a person who exists who is normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

They're not "a person who doesn't exist yet."

I do not see why an ethics regarding procreation, shouldn't involve harm, — schopenhauer1

I didn't argue it shouldn't involve harm. I criticized your arguments that we should not risk harm, and in that specific place in regarding the fact that you seem to know what objective values are. I am not telling you how you should or should not evaluate parenting in your life. I am arguing that your case others should value risk of harm above all else is not justified, for a variety of reasons.

The asymmetry in regards to harms vs. goods comes into play when making a decision to start a life. — schopenhauer1

For you. That's your values. Ones not shared by many, so not universal, and nothing you have said justified one must view it your way. I see nothing objective. That's the way you want us to view it.

Once it is seen that no actual person is deprived of anything prior to birth, any premium put on a value other than harm (to experience accomplishment and love, for example) would not matter for anyone but the parent putting a premium on this value being carried out. — schopenhauer1

I disagree. There is the rest of the family and anyone who cares about people who want kids. This is a core desire of many people, most. Then if everyone follows antinatalism, there are no future generations, which means anyone who wants to leave a legacy: scientists, artists, etc., cannot leave it. That would lead to a lot of feelings of meaninglessness, depression, etc. Then anyone who feels part of some long line of humans accomplishing, exploring creating, even if they themselves are not specifically adding directly to the legacy, these will also feel depressed in large numbers. So if you are effective you are causing harm.

Harm is the only consideration that matters at this point prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

Your value. And one not shared by other people

Again, you are ignoring the a priori logic. No one is in a locked room saying "but I could be living!! — schopenhauer1

Apriori logic? In any case, I never said that or assumed it. I am saying that the very people who harm you are trying to prevent in the vast majority will not, if they come to existence, share your values. I am not saying you are harming them. I am saying that the people you want not to experience harm would not if they came to life share your values.

You are imposing your values on others who are alive and presuming what is of value to be prevented for potential others. It does them no harm, since they are not yet, but it is absurd since they are merely your values and not those you want to protect's values.

So, I could take the harder avenues and provide you theories that people can be harmed by life, but still identify it like a slave who may not mind their situation but is definitely harmed by their situation, but I'll simply take the easy road. I'll refer you to the thousands of posts I've made showing how we are harmed in very particular ways, despite our identifying with the very thing that harms us.. — schopenhauer1

Easy road? save the little ad homs. And seriously why would someone who presents preventing harm as the only value use an ad hom? Hypocrite. I am well aware of the vast ways one can suffer being alive and I am also aware that people can delude themselves. But again, you assume that harm is the only criterion we should use when making decisions. And two, just because it can be the case that people are deluded, who are you to decide that that possibility means homo sapiens should end`? That your values should reign and that you are in a position to evaluate the lives of others. What if you are deluded in your calculations`? You are being vastly more presumptuous than any single parent who decides to have a child. You are universalizing your priorities and your value. A value you cannot live up to yourself.

the only consideration that matters here is the the lifetime of collateral damage of undue suffering and collateral damage — schopenhauer1

The only consideration that matter to you.

You just have a value. Like someone who hates butterscotch icecream. In a variety of ways you keep saying that we must prevent harm to anyone at all costs, period. That's your opinion. And I suppose that's what apriori logic means to you. You know it, so you state it.

Because any other value besides harm to a potential child, would be using that child for a parent's X agenda and outcome they want to see carried out by that child. — schopenhauer1

Nope, see above.

That is the thing, there is no risk with antinatalism. No person actually will be deprived of anything. We are not playing with other people's lives in antinatalism. ANY and ALL risks will ensue if someone is born, however. Once born, other considerations come into play, as the asymmetry of non-existing people is no longer part of the logic. It would be a category error to equate the two as using the same ethical logic in everyday life of those who already exist. — schopenhauer1

You really don't read carefully. You are taking a risk that you are spreading a value that may not be the right one. Maybe your argument is all correct based on your apriori value that we must not create new life because it might suffer. I don't think you have made a case at all. But it is possible that you are right, since I am fallible, being a human and all. But you are also a human, and also potentially fallible, right. You know that right. And as I said above, you are now taking the risk that you will effectively spread a value as the value, but you are wrong about that.

I get it. You can't imagine how. But that's the point. Fallible humans often cannot imagine how they could be wrong.

You are taking a risk your ideas are wrong. And the ulitmate risk you anti-natalists are taking is that you convince people to agree with you, homo sapiens ends this generation

and you were wrong.

And actually what you did was a horrible mistake.

Because we fallible humans might be wrong about something.

Now because I know life involves risk regardless of what I do. My action, my inaction, my ideas, might lead to harming people alive or not alive yet. I know this. And yet I continue to live and try to both make things better and reduce harm. I take the risk that my total contribution will not be postive.

But you, since you think one should not risk anything are being a hypocrite. Both in your daily life, since you risk harming others born and not born, jsut walking down the street. And certainly arguing the end of the species, since, despite your inability to consider it, you might be wrong about what one should value. What you consider objective values might be wrong, even though you can't see it. Unless you are claiming omnsicience. Yet you take these risks.

It's hypocrisy

And it also is very much like the colonialist Christian thinking that others must follow their values.

No explanation why your value is objective.
No explanation how you live up to the rule of not risking harm.
No explanation why your way of evaluating value should apply to people who in the vast majority disagree with you.
Repetition of your apriori.

It's not a case.

You'e expressed an opinion, in a variety of paraphrases.

And you want to impose that opinion on all human life.

I am sure you are capable of paraphrasing your opinion in yet more ways, but I don't have interest in reading more and the ad hom was the icing on a cake I won't eat.

Take care.

I am arguing that your case others should value risk of harm above all else is not justified, for a variety of reasons. — Coben

A variety of reasons, which I refuted by demonstrating it is putting the agenda of the parent's outcome for the child at a premium over and above harm done to the child which is wrong due to playing with someone else's life so that a parent's agenda/vision for that child's life can be carried out in some way.

For you. That's your values. Ones not shared by many, so not universal, and nothing you have said justified one must view it your way. I see nothing objective. That's the way you want us to view it. — Coben

I never said it is "objective", other than the ironclad logic of not causing harm, and having no collateral damage for non-existing people. At the end of the day, if not causing unnecessary suffering (with no cost to any actual person) does not matter to you, and playing with other people's lives so that they can carry out an agenda of the parents (as there is no one with an agenda beforehand) does not seem unethical to you, then I can only keep on giving you examples and appealing to your emotions. That is why ethics is in the realm of debate and ideas. Same goes with ethical ideas like veganism. They are not held by everyone, but it is certainly in the realm of debate and idea-exchange. No one can provide an airtight anything in this, only present the case and offer reasonable explanations as to why the position is a basis for ethical action.

I disagree. There is the rest of the family and anyone who cares about people who want kids. This is a core desire of many people, most. Then if everyone follows antinatalism, there are no future generations, which means anyone who wants to leave a legacy: scientists, artists, etc., cannot leave it. That would lead to a lot of feelings of meaninglessness, depression, etc. Then anyone who feels part of some long line of humans accomplishing, exploring creating, even if they themselves are not specifically adding directly to the legacy, these will also feel depressed in large numbers. So if you are effective you are causing harm. — Coben

Now this response is totally unethical to me. This is precisely what I am talking about in terms of using people for the agenda of others. Now, people's lives are to be used for building legacies for the already-existing. Well, it's just too bad for them that they don't get to use people for their benefit and agenda. Guess what cost this has for the unborn? NOTHING. Why? No actual person exists to be deprived.

Your value. And one not shared by other people — Coben

You overlook the very point, harm is prevented, with no actual loss to an actual person. However, by procreating, definite negative will befall an actual person. That is why, in the procreational world, where no one NEEDS anything (like love, accomplishment, pleasure, virtuous character, etc.) the only logic that makes sense is don't create collateral damage of putting people in a world with the possibility and inevitability of harm.

Apriori logic? In any case, I never said that or assumed it. I am saying that the very people who harm you are trying to prevent in the vast majority will not, if they come to existence, share your values. I am not saying you are harming them. I am saying that the people you want not to experience harm would not if they came to life share your values. — Coben

Matters not. If someone does not live to realize a certain set of values or experiences, there is no actual loss to an actual person. What does occur, however, is no actual person will suffer.

You are imposing your values on others who are alive and presuming what is of value to be prevented for potential others. It does them no harm, since they are not yet, but it is absurd since they are merely your values and not those you want to protect's values. — Coben

My values does NO HARM to ANYONE. Yours will inevitably cause harm. If harm doesn't matter to you, I can accuse you of mild sadism, and using others for selfish gain (even if the selfish gain is based on some sort of altruism for something that you want to live out an agenda.. which ironically would not need to take place, if the child wasn't born in the first place to need to have to live out). But again, I can only provide arguments. If I told you that I "know" the things-in-themselves, that would be pretty absurd right? But I can provide arguments for what the possibilities can be. There is no ironclad anything in philosophical debates. What I do know is new, foreign-sounding ideas are usually reviled at first being against people's enculturated sensibilities, then often violently opposed, and then (sometimes) considered as self-evident (pace Schopenhauer).

Easy road? save the little ad homs. And seriously why would someone who presents preventing harm as the only value use an ad hom? Hypocrite. I am well aware of the vast ways one can suffer being alive and I am also aware that people can delude themselves. But again, you assume that harm is the only criterion we should use when making decisions. And two, just because it can be the case that people are deluded, who are you to decide that that possibility means homo sapiens should end`? That your values should reign and that you are in a position to evaluate the lives of others. What if you are deluded in your calculations`? You are being vastly more presumptuous than any single parent who decides to have a child. You are universalizing your priorities and your value. A value you cannot live up to yourself. — Coben

My value will lead to no harm to another person- playing with their life for my vision of an agenda that I want to see (at the least a new person born, at the most, a new person born that SHOULD have XYZ experiences). The kicker you can never jump over, and unfortunately for you, is irrefutable, is that no actual person exists to lose out, only a projection of a possible person in a parent's imagination. As the saying goes- no harm, no foul. Also, let sleeping dogs lie.

You just have a value. Like someone who hates butterscotch icecream. In a variety of ways you keep saying that we must prevent harm to anyone at all costs, period. That's your opinion. And I suppose that's what apriori logic means to you. You know it, so you state it. — Coben

No, a priori means in this case, it is based on non-empirical basis. You may not think it is important, but the logic is sound- something that does not exist is not deprived of any goods. Something that does not exist is not harmed, which is good. But no, it is not like butterscotch ice cream because, butterscotch ice cream has no affect for someone else, harmful or otherwise. By procreating someone, you are incurring for someone else a whole life time of possible and inevitable suffering (and I think collateral damage).

But you are also a human, and also potentially fallible, right. You know that right. And as I said above, you are now taking the risk that you will effectively spread a value as the value, but you are wrong about that.

I get it. You can't imagine how. But that's the point. Fallible humans often cannot imagine how they could be wrong.

You are taking a risk your ideas are wrong. And the ulitmate risk you anti-natalists are taking is that you convince people to agree with you, homo sapiens ends this generation

and you were wrong.

And actually what you did was a horrible mistake.

Because we fallible humans might be wrong about something. — Coben

I am fine with the idea that no new person will have to endure suffering, overcome challenges of life, and also know that there is no actual person deprived of anything. Win, win. Nothing matters to nothing (non-existing things).

Now because I know life involves risk regardless of what I do. My action, my inaction, my ideas, might lead to harming people alive or not alive yet. I know this. And yet I continue to live and try to both make things better and reduce harm. I take the risk that my total contribution will not be postive. — Coben

Yet you can WHOLESALE PREVENT ALL SUFFERING by not having a kid. Part of the structural suffering too is that once born, we will inevitably not only be effected/affected by suffering but also effect/affect suffering for others. It is inevitable. All of it can be prevented (with no cost to an actual person who is deprived of good).

But you, since you think one should not risk anything are being a hypocrite. Both in your daily life, since you risk harming others born and not born, jsut walking down the street. And certainly arguing the end of the species, since, despite your inability to consider it, you might be wrong about what one should value. What you consider objective values might be wrong, even though you can't see it. Unless you are claiming omnsicience. Yet you take these risks.

It's hypocrisy — Coben

See what I said above.. This is just another reason people shouldn't be born, people inevitably will cause others to suffer.

No explanation why your value is objective.
No explanation how you live up to the rule of not risking harm.
No explanation why your way of evaluating value should apply to people who in the vast majority disagree with you.
Repetition of your apriori.

It's not a case.

You'e expressed an opinion, in a variety of paraphrases.

And you want to impose that opinion on all human life.

I am sure you are capable of paraphrasing your opinion in yet more ways, but I don't have interest in reading more and the ad hom was the icing on a cake I won't eat.

Take care. — Coben

I must say, you thinking that was an ad hom, is a bit unfair and taken the wrong way. The hard road and easy road was a way for me to say that I can try to give you a bunch of empirical evidence, which I have already sufficiently provided in abundance in thousands of posts (go look), or I can go back to a priori logical asymmetry which is simply easier to use for the purpose of posting for small debates like this that don't last a lifetime.

Anyways, putting another person in a lifetime of known harms and collateral damage, and using others for your agenda (whether the person born later identifies with life or your agenda matters not), and creating challenges that THEN have to be overcome (as life inherently has challenges that individuals must overcome), is the height of presumption in my opinion. Thinking that other people SHOULD have to navigate and deal with life, because another person's evaluation and projection of life, is the HEIGHT of presumption. The very presumption that you assume I have for other people leads to NO collateral damage and harm. However, other forms of presumption will ALWAYS lead to collateral damage and harm.

Consent is an issue when:

(a) we're talking about a particular action that one is an actor in--either via performing actions on another or having actions performed upon by another — Terrapin Station

After someone is born and is old enough to understand or express consent then any thing happening to them has not being explicitly consented to unless they explicitly consent.

And once you start having experiences you didn't consent to these and cannot give retrospective consent. Usually consent comes before an event but experiences just happen continuously til we die.

So unless someone starts to give consent to x y and z all their experiences are non consensual. In my case I was forced to go to school and church my entire childhood without being asked about my preferences.

I think consent is a moral issue. Anyone can ignore consent if they want to. The idea we should respect other peoples consent is a moral claim.

But considering the non consensual nature of existence it would be hypocritical to demand consent in some areas and ignore it in others.