It is obvious that the position of antinatalism cannot be made to be one of an ethical position. The law, that is to say, the end of a thing by virtue of its essence, shall be oriented to reproduction. However, if we are to posit that it should be done out of another position- perhaps one of a position that we should withhold from procreation because overpopulation is bad.

However, that would be mediocre compared to anti-natalism. Which is the position that birth itself is evil. Sounds much like Gnosticism in a way. Where the position was that matter was evil. The question must be proposed in the same manner: if it is evil, why does it exist? In the same way- if it is evil, why does it exist and co-operate with nature?

if it is evil, why does it exist? — Riley

Why would it being evil make it not exist

if it is evil, why does it exist and co-operate with nature? — Riley

Why does it cooperating with nature make it not evil. Murder theft and rape are pretty natural

The law, that is to say, the end of a thing by virtue of its essence, shall be oriented to reproduction. — Riley

Antinatalism doesn’t “end” anything. It doesn’t start anything that’s different

I'd say only the latter, since only people who are born and who have developed mentally a bit have notions of what counts as suffering. — Terrapin Station

But that is not even the debate when starting a life. The debate is, if you start the life then indeed you have foisted some version of what is good for someone else be de facto having them born. By not having them, there is no version of what is good for someone else foisted. So yeah, that is a different category than someone who is already born and you are dictating to them what is suffering or not. I disagree with you on both accounts. It is not good to decide for someone else that they will be harmed (antinatalism), and after they are born, it is wrong to determine what they should feel is harmed (but I agree perhaps that this is more for an adult human as decisions should be made for those who are not developmentally able to maneuver the social mechanisms of society).

But that is not even the debate when starting a life. — schopenhauer1

Correct. Again, the comment wasn't about natalism/antinatalism.

@khaled I have this idea that this world can be characterized as "growth-through-adversity coupled with undue harm".

Growth-through-adversity is defined by challenges faced by someone in order to attain a particular goal. For most people this at least involves survival/work along with goals involving entertainment/family-pursuits outside of survival/work.

Undue harm would be overriding illnesses, circumstances, accidents, disasters, etc. that otherwise would not be asked for outside the usual growth-through-adversity.

To be concise in these posts I am going to call growth-through adversity GTA and undue harm UH.

The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". There is no escape from it outside suicide. But no one asks why this is good for someone who doesn't exist in the first place to put this reality onto a new person. Oddly, the parent is an existential missionizer force-recruiting new people who, like religious families tend to do, try to enculturate the new recruit into identifying with the GTA-UH model so as not to regret being recruited.

"If it is evil, why does it exist" was in reference to Gnosticism. Murder, rape and theft are not natural. They are not oriented in nature through some teleology which is intrinsic to their ontology. "Anti-natalism doesn't end anything." I'm not sure you understood any of the language I've used. Teleology, the law, nature, etc. Which would have me question if you have studied any amount of philosophy. I'd ask you to read it again because it seems you aren't understanding what I meant.

I have some questions.

Assuming the entire population abides by the antinatalist fundamental and stops giving birth. Within 100 and so years most humans would become extinct save for those in extremely remote locations. Within a number of milenia humans would likely repopulate earth and likely continue birthing.

Assuming somehow all humans could be coherced to comply and extinction was absolute. It would not be unreasonable to assume neture would do its thing and within a couple million years or so evolution would produce another sapiens being, and thus resuming the cycle.

Extending the fundamental to all sentient beings, as suffering can be reasonably extended to all living, how would one stop suffering universally, or or does the concern only encompass beings aware of their own existance.

Thanks

No it is unreasonable. Self-consciousnes brings are unnatural in-and-of-themselves because they can contradict the natural law. Which betrays a Darwinist view of the world and nature. But that isn't the point... we must understand that a species orients itself to it's own survival. That is the very basis of Darwinism. If we stop having children indefinitely, we are contradicting the natural law. Which is in-and-of-itself immoral.

And suffering seems to be an unreasonable thing to want to stop. It's superfluous to want to eliminate It- or perhaps create a utopia. The term "life is suffering" originated from a Christian understanding of the world. It has been adopted by many others. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Pascal... The idea was that suffering is intrinsic in the very nature of an individual, who suffers for a plethora of reasons. By himself, by others, by mother nature- mentally, physically and to some spiritually. If it is intrinsic ontologically, then it is preposterous. Perhaps transcendence is your best bet.

But as I said: Anti-natalism is the position that pregnancy, birth, etc- are all intrinsically evil because they induce suffering. However, there is obviously a teleology to the end of the sexual organs and to the species itself. It seems idiotic to contradict that. Which is why I proposed it in a specific scenario. However, that is not anti-natalism. Anti-natalism will and must cause the extinction of a species. It's never been held to absolute credibility either. Since those who argue for it cannot argue for it to not be against the natural law. Which of course, means that anti-natalism is evil and not vice versa.

Self-consciousnes brings are unnatural in-and-of-themselves because they can contradict the natural law. — Riley

It's not much of a natural law if you can do something other than it.

Oh Lord. Has the understanding of teleology in relation to ontology escaped you? It Was my point that self-consciousness, which manifests the will, is contrary to the natural law. I would ask: have you read any of the studies and philosophies concerning natural law?

Has the understanding of teleology in relation to ontology escaped you? It Was my point that self-consciousness, which manifests the will, is contrary to the natural law. — Riley

It's my point that if we're talking about natural law, we can't have phenomena that operate in any way contrary to it.

I don't buy teleology at all.

Re the question, don't be a patronizing ass.

Why should antinatalism be evil? It ist voluntary, we dont force people to be antinatalistic.

Just curious who you are addressing.

What argument do you have against teleology? And self-consciousness is not inherently contradictory to the natural law. So if teleology exists, it would not contradict it

I'm assuming he's talking to me.

Anti-natalism doesn't have to be forced for it to be evil. The same way murder is evil. Precisely why it is evil... you chose to do it.

And it should be made clear: that the natural law is in relation to teleology. Not the will and not to the individual in-and-of-itself. But rather the parts to the whole than the whole to the parts.

The eyes for seeing, the heart for pumping. These all have their end. Which is why I see that you misunderstand precisely what is being said by the words 'natural law.'

And it should be made clear: that the natural law is in relation to teleology. Not the will and not to the individual in-and-of-itself. But rather the parts to the whole than the whole to the parts.

The eyes for seeing, the heart for pumping. These all have their end. Which is why I see that you misunderstand precisely what is being said by the words 'natural law.' — Riley

Teleology is mistaken, though. There's nothing that eyes can do that's not part of their nature. Same for hearts, etc.

"There's nothing that the eyes can do that's not part of their nature."

Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified.
.

Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified. — Riley

So then how can anyone do anything contrary to natural law, which is what I asked you at the start?

antinatalism always loses. Because all it takes is 2 people of opposite genders to disagree (or not care) about the logic. Still, one can abide by the idea in his own life. “Everyone is doing it” isn’t an excuse to do something you know is wrong

Anti-natalism doesn't have to be forced for it to be evil. The same way murder is evil. Precisely why it is evil... you chose to do it — Riley

Are you seriously implying that someone can be evil for not having children?

Murder, rape and theft are not natural. They are not oriented in nature through some teleology which is intrinsic to their ontology — Riley

I’d give you a speeding ticket on that one. What does “oriented in nature” mean in the first place and why are you speaking as if “oriented in nature” is a requirement for any action to be good? That just sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me.

I'm not sure you understood any of the language I've used. Teleology, the law, nature, etc. — Riley

You said the end of a “thing” by virtue of its essence. I thought that was referring to the child.

However, there is obviously a teleology to the end of the sexual organs and to the species itself. It seems idiotic to contradict that — Riley

I don’t get what this is supposed to mean. Please elaborate

"There's nothing that the eyes can do that's not part of their nature."

Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified. — Riley

I ask the same question as terrapin then, how can one ever go against natural law if anything he/she does is natural by virtue of him/her being able to do it

Since those who argue for it cannot argue for it to not be against the natural law. Which of course, means that anti-natalism is evil and not vice versa. — Riley

Again, this sounds like a glaring naturalistic fallacy

That just sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me. — khaled

You already stated what I was going to. Incidentally, did you see my post about the growth-through-adversity and undue suffering idea?

Cough cough... The natural law is an idea based in teleology and is a metaphysical argument. So saying I committed a naturalistic fallacy is baseless.

I already told you. You should give a look at Hegels idea of self-consciousness for these matters. Especially since this concept is that which manifests the will. It does not contradict the natural law. It has nothing to do with it. Which is why I said in a plain Darwinist view of the world, it does not exist. I should also note that Darwinism bases itself in teleology and natural law theory.

You already stated what I was going to. Incidentally, did you see my post about the growth-through-adversity and undue suffering idea — schopenhauer1

Yea. Makes it harder for anyone to give the typical “argument” that antinatalism “only looks at pleasure and pain” or assumes or pain is to be avoided etc

Cough cough... The natural law is an idea based in teleology and is a metaphysical argument. So saying I committed a naturalistic fallacy is baseless. — Riley

Well then you’d be doing something in the same “class” of argument as appealing to god if that’s not what you’re actually doing. But other than that I don’t think your argument works anyways. If anything one can do is part of “natural law” as you told terrapin then how is antinatalism going against it?

So we have

(1) "self-consciousness, which manifests the will, is contrary to the natural law"

and

(2) "Hegels idea of self-consciousness for these matters. Especially since this concept is that which manifests the will. It does not contradict the natural law. "

Um, what???

Oh my bad. I must not have caught that typo. Self-Consciousness possesses the ability to contradict the natural law because it manifests the will. But it Isn't inherently contradictory. As in "if this then that." It is also a non-sequitor to think that this disproves teleology and such. Considering they are not logically opposed.

I never said anything one can do is with the natural law- that is a strawman. And no, that is a false-comparison to say appealing to teleology is equal to appealing to god. The two can be exclusive.