By the way, you don't unintentionally CAUSE someone to be run over by a car when you give birth, either.

I agree with all of that but now it is a case of the lesser evil. The traffic control designers manufacturers, etc are aware that someone could get run over but on the other hand are also aware that the signs REDUCE the likelyhood of that. Their actions cause harm but they prevent greater harm.

On the other hand, having children causes much greater harm than it prevents. No one benefits from you having children except you. It is a risk you don't have to take and that no one has asked you to take.

No one benefits from you having children except you. — khaled

What a f**ked view of the world. No one benefits from other people in any way?

What a f**ked view of the world. No one benefits from other people in any way? — Terrapin Station

Yes because having children is only delaying the inevitable. There will be a "final generation" of humans who will have to suffer from not having enough people. Having children is simply taking that burnden and putting it on somoene else. People definitely benefit from other people, but eventually there will be a time where lack of people WILL become an issue. Having children is giving that suffering for the next generation to shoulder until the last one finally collapses. There is no point in it.

Also whether or not people benefit from others is not that important when determining whether to have more people. Just because I'd benefit or society would benefit form having a kid doesn't justify me risking forcing one to suffer for 80 years. In the same way that if I have shit job that doesn't entitle me to force more people to work for my company to make my job easier.

Just to be clear, other people are awesome. But that doesn't justify making more of them if they might not like it. Which they very much might not

Also just out of curiosity. Can you think of any example where an action that produces COMPARABLE amounts of pain and suffering is FORCED onto someone who has absolutely no demand for either and where that is considered permissable? For example, is it reasonable to force an average, stable teenager into the hunger games? The chances of suffering are very high but so are the chances of pleasure if you win. So is it permissable to force them into the games? Because I think that life is to non existence what the hunger games are to the average stable middle class life.

It's a problem of risking severe harm and pleasure without being asked to do so vs leave them alone. And I cannot think of a situation where people would rather risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked to do so or see it as moral if someone else does

Yes because having children is only delaying the inevitable. There will be a "final generation" of humans who will have to suffer from not having enough people. Having children is simply taking that burnden and putting it on somoene else. People definitely benefit from other people, but eventually there will be a time where lack of people WILL become an issue. Having children is giving that suffering for the next generation to shoulder until the last one finally collapses. There is no point in it. — khaled

There are so many problems with this. First off, let's say that something is inevitable that people do not desire. The problem with delaying that is?

Just because I'd benefit or society would benefit form having a kid doesn't justify me risking forcing one to suffer for 80 years. — khaled

It's also a f**ked view that not only do you think that anyone is forcing anyone to "suffer" for 80 years, just the fact that you think that anyone is suffering for 80 years is f**ked.

There are so many problems with this. First off, let's say that something is inevitable that people do not desire. The problem with delaying that is? — Terrapin Station

That it's immoral. Because in this case you're not just delaying it you're relaying the pain to someone else. Delaying is different. If there was an option to "give" someone cancer and lose it yourself, I would say it is immoral to do so. Unless you have their consent

You can delay it all you want, but don't give it to other people

Also just out of curiosity. Can you think of any example where an action that produces COMPARABLE amounts of pain and suffering is FORCED onto someone who has absolutely no demand for either and where that is considered permissable? — khaled

Again, no one is forcing anything on anyone by conceiving or giving birth to them. I don't know why you can't learn this.

Because in this case you're not just delaying it you're relaying the pain to someone else. — khaled

What pain are you even talking about? Can you specify what you're talking about?

Again, no one is forcing anything on anyone by conceiving or giving birth to them. I don't know why you can't learn this. — Terrapin Station

They force them to have the capacity for suffering which I think is just as big a crime as causing the suffering yourself. I don't know why you can't see this

They force them to have the capacity for suffering which I think is just as big a crime as causing the suffering yourself. I don't know why you can't see this — khaled

Force is only an issue for specific actions. Not "forcing a capacity for x."

So what pain are you talking about anyway?

So what pain are you talking about anyway? — Terrapin Station

tbh idk what I was thinking when I wrote that.

Force is only an issue for specific actions. Not "forcing a capacity for x." — Terrapin Station

Is taking away a capacity for x painlessly bad? So is paralyzing someone painlessly without their consent bad?

What exacly is a "specific action" that you consider as morally considerable. Does it have to cause pain/pleasure? What exactly does it have to do? Is planting a bomb in a fetus a "specific action"? If so unto whom is the action being done?

Anyways it's 12 am over here and I have to sleep. I am starting to make no sense

tbh idk what I was thinking when I wrote that. — khaled

Okay, but just in general. I mean, Andrew is apparently an adult still whining about having to eat broccoli and go to school or whatever. Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Is taking away a capacity for x painlessly bad? So paralyzing someone painlessly without their consent? — khaled

If we're talking about an entity normally capable of consent and we're talking about performing a specific action on them that has long-lasting physical effects that they didn't consent to, sure. The pain part is irrelevant.

Okay, but just in general. I mean, Andrew is apparently an adult still whining about having to eat broccoli and go to school or whatever. Is that the sort of thing you mean? — Terrapin Station

No nonono. I was talking about the exruciating pain of humainty as it flies towards extinction be it due to heat death or more likely internal strife. That outcome is inevitable statistically. You can have it now or your children can have it. I was refuting the common argument of "oh but humanity must go on for some reason or other" but then I realized you didn't say that at all. It is morally better we starve and suffer now than increase the population even further and have our children starve and suffer.

If we're talking about an entity normally capable of consent and we're talking about performing a specific action on them that has long-lasting physical effects that they didn't consent to, sure. The pain part is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

Having a child is an action that has long lasting physical effects that no one consented to. Think of it this way:

Is removing someone's ability to walk painlessly, bad? I think we'd both say yes because that's a long lasting physical effect.

Now how about amplifying someone's pain receptors and secretion of depressive hormones in their brain? I think we'd both say doing that is wrong because it is a long lasting physical effect.

The point we disagree on is that you seem to require "someone" whose pain you're amplifying or whose ability to walk you're taking away but all I require is for that ability exchange or capacity exchange to OCCUR.

I don't care if there was no child beforehand before you forced into the world something that can experience pain and suffering and I do not know why you don't think the same way.

Ex: Is it ok to implant a bomb in a fetus? No, because as the bomb is going off there is an entity that objects to the bomb going off. That's what we agreed on.

Alright: How about implanting the same bomb but this time it MAY go off? 15% chance. I still think we'd agree that's immoral

Now: Is it ok to have a child? I would say no, because as the child is experiencing ANY HARM WHATSOEVER, half the reason he is experiencing it is because he exists in the first place. And there is a chance the he might not consent to existing in the first place. This is like the bomb but it MAY blow up example. There is a CHANCE your child suffers severely enough that he may wish never have existed in the first place. Then what? Why you'd be at fault for having him wouldn't you?

Similar to how planting a bomb that MAY explode is wrong, having a child is wrong. Becuase in both cases there MAY appear someone capable of giving or withholding consent, in the first case about having a bomb implanted and in the second case about existing. I just cannot see a way to treat those situations differently and be consistent.

Also I'd appreciate it if you found that earlier example I was talking about:

"Also just out of curiosity. Can you think of any example where an action that produces COMPARABLE amounts of pain and suffering is FORCED onto someone who has absolutely no demand for either and where that is considered permissable? For example, is it reasonable to force an average, stable teenager into the hunger games? The chances of suffering are very high but so are the chances of pleasure if you win. So is it permissable to force them into the games? Because I think that life is to non existence what the hunger games are to the average stable middle class life.

It's a problem of risking severe harm and pleasure without being asked to do so vs leave them alone. And I cannot think of a situation where people would rather risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked to do so or see it as moral if someone else does"

and to this:

"Also whether or not people benefit from others is not that important when determining whether to have more people. Just because I'd benefit or society would benefit form having a kid doesn't justify me risking forcing one to suffer for 80 years. In the same way that if I have shit job that doesn't entitle me to force more people to work for my company to make my job easier.

Just to be clear, other people are awesome. But that doesn't justify making more of them if they might not like it. Which they very much might not"


I seriously have to go now I'm going to hate myself in the morning

No nonono. I was talking about the exruciating pain of humainty as it flies towards extinction be it due to heat death or more likely internal strife. — khaled

That sounds ridiculous though. You're not even talking about pain that anyone is experiencing?

Is removing someone's ability to walk painlessly, bad? I think we'd both say yes because that's a long lasting physical effect. — khaled

I'd only say yes because it's a specific action, done by an agent to someone normally capable (now, not in the future) of consenting, and they didn't consent to it. It's not morally bad with anything less than those requirements.

can experience pain and suffering and I do not know why you don't think the same way. — khaled

But apparently you're not even really talking about pain and suffering there, but you're talking about "the excruciating pain of humanity as it flies towards extinction"???

It's a problem of risking severe harm and pleasure without being asked to do so vs leave them alone. And I cannot think of a situation where people would rather risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked to do so or see it as moral if someone else does — khaled

I think this highlights the divisions and varying perspectives that cause us all not view this issue (anti-natalism) in the same way. Wouldn't EVERY situation where someone says or implies an "ought" be a situation where people are willing to "risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked"? Kids should go to school. But kids hates school. They suffer there. And this "suffering" is separate from the increased "suffering" caused by a mass shooting. Maybe they shouldn't go to school because it is full of suffering?

Most of us view life like school. Sure it includes suffering. But it is better than no school. I think the antinatalists defend their position by suggesting that any suffering is real, whereas the pleasure NOT experienced by the unborn is a non issue. But wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to say that "I am glad I was born, but I can't be sure others will be, so I should promote the idea that all new birth is wrong"?

I plan NOT to have children. But I do not see a compelling argument in anti-natalism that would convince people of this position. Surely, few (ZERO?) humans would ever be able to get past their own subjective, "well 'I' am glad that 'I' was born" or vice versa.

But I do not see a compelling argument in anti-natalism that would convince people of this position. Surely, few (ZERO?) humans would ever be able to get past their own subjective, "well 'I' am glad that 'I' was born" or vice versa. — ZhouBoTong

Not only that but most people would ask just what suffering/harm the antinatalists are talking about, where they'd only accept specific examples as an answer. And if the answer turns out to be that someone didn't want to eat broccoli but was forced to, didn't want to go to school or church but was forced to, etc., the vast majority of people would say, "Give me a break" and see someone suggesting that as "suffering" that's still affecting them as indicative that they need counseling, because there's something wrong with them that isn't wrong with most people.

And if the answer turns out to be that someone didn't want to eat broccoli but was forced to, didn't want to go to school or church but was forced to, etc., the vast majority of people would say, "Give me a break" — Terrapin Station

For sure.

and see someone suggesting that as "suffering" that's still affecting them as indicative that they need counseling, because there's something wrong with them that isn't wrong with most people. — Terrapin Station

It feels like an ad hom, but I would be lying if I said I never thought something along those lines.

dude you literally ignored the rest of my comment and focused on the first paragraph. Forget the that and actually address my points please. We can get back to the extinction thing later. I already said I misunderstood what you said as I wrote it

I'd only say yes because it's a specific action, done by an agent to someone normally capable (now, not in the future) of consenting — Terrapin Station

You'd be contradicting yourself then by saying (now not in the future) because before you said:

What if it was. What if someone set a bomb to exlode BEFORE a certain baby was born and set it to explode AFTER he was born.
— khaled. (This was you quoting me)

That's irrelevant. The issue is that when the person walks into the location where the bomb goes off, they're an agent normally capable of granting or withholding consent. Thus at that point, they either consent or not to being bombed. — Terrapin Station

So let me be extra clear on this:

Is it ok to plant a bomb BEFORE a baby is born and setting it to explode after? There is no person to give consent at the time the specific action of planting the bomb is taking place.

Also please actually respond to my comment not the first paragraph because I don't want to copy paste

dude you literally ignored the rest of my comment and focused on the first paragraph. F — khaled

Yes, because all of a sudden you started piling a bunch of stuff on again with a long post. Remember "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."

We were doing well with that.

Is it ok to plant a bomb BEFORE a baby is born and setting it to explode after? There is no person to give consent at the time the specific action of planting the bomb is taking place. — khaled

I've said at least four or five times now that the problem isn't planting the bomb. It's the bomb going off.

But apparently you're not even really talking about pain and suffering there, but you're talking about "the excruciating pain of humanity as it flies towards extinction"??? — Terrapin Station

I think fundamentally he is talking about the pain he feels when he thinks about the fate of humanity, which he sees as ending in a bleak way.

I was talking about the exruciating pain of humainty as it flies towards extinction be it due to heat death or more likely internal strife. That outcome is inevitable statistically. You can have it now or your children can have it. — khaled

I disagree that that outcome is inevitable. That's one of the reasons why I fight against the lies put forward by scientists, they make the lives of many people worse.

The heat death of the universe is not an inevitable fact, it's a belief. It's not an inevitable fact because we don't know whether our current laws of physics will keep being valid in the future, we don't know whether they apply everywhere in the universe, and we don't know whether they are accurate enough that they allow to predict the fate of the whole universe.

Regarding internal strife, it might feel like we're going that way, but that's not inevitable either. It might become inevitable if we do nothing to change our course.

I would never have children so there is never going to be the question of what I might make my children do. The whole premise of antinatalism is that it is immoral to have children. Once you have had a child there is a limit to how much you can control their well being.

I have a friend who suffered from genuine school phobia but he was forced to go to school including because the educational psychologist encouraged his parents to do so. I also know someone one else who ended up stopping going to school because he couldn't cope.

You seem to have a trivial view of things that people find hard. I always went to school but I got badly bullied. If someone enjoys school then they are less likely to complain. I also mentioned being forced to church and throughout my whole childhood I went to church up to 5 times a week and had to read the bible and pray everyday.

I am getting the impression now that you don't value consent at all.

I disagree with your characterization of consent. If you do not rape someone then you are refraining from an action because you respect someones consent. Refraining from actions not doing actions is the main way that consent is respected.
— Andrew4Handel

None of that disagrees with anything I've said, though. — Terrapin Station

It does because you can respect consent without an action and without involving anyone else just restraining your own behaviour.

It's also a f**ked view that not only do you think that anyone is forcing anyone to "suffer" for 80 years, just the fact that you think that anyone is suffering for 80 years is f**ked. — Terrapin Station

"I have not had a single happy day in my life. I have always worked hard, digging in the garden. I am tired," Istambulova told the Daily Mail. When asked about her secrets for longevity, she said, "It was God's will. I did nothing to make it happen.... Long life is not at all God's gift for me—but a punishment."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k8ydd/earths-supposed-oldest-living-person-has-hated-every-day-of-her-life

It does because you can respect consent without an action — Andrew4Handel

?? No idea what you're saying there.

"I have not had a single happy day in my life. I have always worked hard, digging in the garden. I am tired," Istambulova told the Daily Mail. When asked about her secrets for longevity, she said, "It was God's will. I did nothing to make it happen.... Long life is not at all God's gift for me—but a punishment." — Andrew4Handel

I don't believe her. I can believe that was her attitude when she was interviewed, but I know plenty of people who will say things in that vein at times and things completely inconsistent with it at other times.

Not doing something is respecting consent....such as not creating children.

I don't believe her. I can believe that was her attitude when she was interviewed, but I know plenty of people who will say things in that vein at times and things completely inconsistent with it at other times. — Terrapin Station

You are aware that people commit suicide aren't you?

Not doing something is respecting consent. — Andrew4Handel

I hadn't made any comments about "respecting consent."