Indeed it does. Because it has all the properties of a problem. If you don’t solve it you suffer. Simple as that. Heck you don’t have to take my word for it, maybe your child would find searching for meaning problematic. Why take the risk for him? — khaled

I see it more like an attractor than a problem, finding meaning is what humans naturally do.

I am not saying either. I am saying that you’d be a hypocrite if you had children. Because you would be going against ethical principles you employ in every other situation. — khaled

My personal case would be a very bad example because I have 3 grown up children who have done well for themselves and have provided me not only with a near-lifetime of joy (with the attached growing pains), but with 4 grandchildren who I also enjoy tremendously, and who up to this point are normal, happy, and playful children. But putting my joy aside, I would adventure to say if given the choice of not existing at all, all of these persons I contributed to put on this planet would choose to remain.

No it doesn’t. When I say don’t benefit whatsoever, I mean the expected value of pleasure/pain doesn’t change but the standard deviation does. — khaled

Huh? You'd need to explain that.

I would adventure to say if given the choice of not existing at all, all of these persons I contributed to put on this planet would choose to remain. — staticphoton

And if they hadn’t? Why take the risk? Also everything you said doesn’t stop you from being a hypocrite still

I see it more like an attractor than a problem, finding meaning it what humans naturally do. — staticphoton

It doesn’t matter what you think of meaning as long as you’re willing to concede that “life has suffering”. That’s essentially all the empirical data antinatalism needs to make sense

Huh? You'd need to explain that. — Terrapin Station

It’s 4am here and I haven’t slept so I’ll say this real quick. Although standard deviation and mean are very easy concepts you can look up in a minute.

Situation A:
If you succeed in this game you gain up to 5 ounces of pleasure chance of success: 50%
If you fail in this game you get up to 5 ounces of pain chance of failure: 50%

Thus you are expected to gain a total of 0 pain/pleasure if you continue this game forever

Situation B:
If you succeed in this game you gain up to 2 ounces of pleasure chance of success: 50%
If you fail in this game you get up to 2 ounces of pain chance of failure: 50%

Thus you are expected to gain a total of 0 pain/pleasure if you continue this game forever

I’m saying it’s wrong to take someone from B to A

Good night

So we're always expecting a zero sum game?

And if they hadn’t? Why take the risk? Also everything you said doesn’t stop you from being a hypocrite still — khaled

Aren't you making far reaching assumptions to conclude hypocrisy based on nothing but my stated remarks on anti-natalism?

It doesn’t matter what you think of meaning as long as you’re willing to concede that “life has suffering”. — khaled

I suppose my problem is understanding what part of suffering precludes life. I can understand that an absolutely miserable existence in every aspect not be worth living, but to say any further new life should be avoided because some degree, any degree of suffering will occur, seems a little extreme to me.

I suppose my problem is understanding what part of suffering precludes life. I can understand that an absolutely miserable existence in every aspect not be worth living, but to say any further new life should be avoided because some degree, any degree of suffering will occur, seems a little extreme to me. — staticphoton

Why? It makes perfect sense to me.

Is it good to create new people that are happy? No it isn’t. It is expected. Creating the problem of happiness/suffering for someone else then solving it is the least you can do. It doesn’t make you good. That’s why if someone has a child then leaves them on the street immediately we find that appalling. Another example is this: you have 3 starving people and 2 solutions

A: feed the 3 starving people
B: materialize 100 satiated people so that overall you create more pleasure than in A

I think we can both agree A is still the better solution here right? Because B doesn’t actually help anyone. That’s an example to show that making happy people =\= making people happy although people sometimes treat them like the same thing. The former is neutral the latter is good (Which is why you preferred A to B, because A is making few people happy while B is making a lot of happy people. The only way you'd prefer A to B then is if making people happy is good and making happy people is neutral)

Now let’s look at suffering. Is it ok to make suffering people? No, it’s wrong. We can both agree to that right? Creating the problem of suffering/pleasure for someone else then NOT solving it is obviously wrong. Which is why, again, we find dumping one's child on a street somewhere and leaving them there appalling

Put those 2 premises together and you get: having children is wrong, unless you can provide them with a perfect life as measured by them in which case it’s neutral.

Aren't you making far reaching assumptions to conclude hypocrisy based on nothing but my stated remarks on anti-natalism? — staticphoton

Yes my bad. Forget about that. It’s just that most people I’ve talked to so far share the previous 2 premises except terrapin

zero or negative sum = bad. I’d say life is a negative sum game for most. You have to be really lucky for it not to be. And if you somehow knew it would be positive sum for someone then having them would still be neutral at best. You can forget about the “and they don’t benefit from it whatsoever” bit. What about an example of taking someone from a less risky to a more risky position without their consent that is considered ok.

One problem I see is implentation. Voluntary participation is probably unlikely. If an antinatalist became supreme ruler of the world and legislated that any further procreation is forbidden, how would one deal with transgressors? Any kind of action against them would increase suffering. Would that be justifiable for the greater good?
Also, i assume antinatalism proposes to eliminate only human suffering, as non human suffering would continue indefintely after we are extinct.

One problem I see is implentation — staticphoton

That has no effect on whether or not antinatlism follows from the moral premises I mentioned. If, say a state had very few law enforcement officers and someone walked up to you and said "One problem I see with saying that murder is wrong is implementation. We don't have enough cops so it must be ok to murder right?" Whether or not a moral ideal is practical has nothing to say about whether or not it follows logically from its premises. You can disagree with the premises, but so far you haven't

Any kind of action against them would increase suffering. Would that be justifiable for the greater good? — staticphoton

I don't know, some say yes some say no. I don't care because an antinatalist would never become supreme ruler of the world for obvious reasons.

Also, i assume antinatalism proposes to eliminate only human suffering — staticphoton

Not necessarily. There is just no use reasoning with cows. There is use reasoning with humans (hopefully). Cows will continue to suffer because they don't see the logic of antinatlism. Not much we can do about that. If cows were intelligent enough I'd be arguing with them too


But other than that. Do you see any problem in the reasoning of the previous post?

Please help sign this petition. People need to know about this word.

https://www.change.org/p/oed-uk-oup-com-make-antinatalism-a-word-in-the-dictionary

But other than that. Do you see any problem in the reasoning of the previous post? — khaled

From a purely logical perspective your argument is coherent. For purely argumentative purposes I can go along with suffering = bad, and happiness = good, although it really reduces the depth of both circumstances to the thickness of a sheet of paper.

However I don't agree with the stance that personal interpretation and moral valuation of suffering/pleasure, despair/happiness, should dictate the outcome of 2 billion years of evolution. I also don't agree with the unstated conclusion that human existence is a mistake of nature that needs to be corrected by eliminating the species through voluntary attrition or any other means.

In my personal view, the fact that the matter, energy, and space-time that originated in the big bang has evolved to become aware of itself, is astonishing feat far beyond my comprehension. Although I am not a religious mas, I see homo sapiens and consciousness as a miracle of nature.

Using a simple line of reasoning to deliberately end what I believe to be nature greatest achievement over the fact that pain exists, would be unacceptable on my part, however that is just a personal belief, not a personal judgment against you.

You're not understanding the context of my comments to you at the moment.

I'm trying to understand how it makes sense to talk about any chance of pleasure if we're limited to talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever."

You brought up the idea of a zero-sum game in the context of expectations. I'm trying to figure out how that makes sense of positing both a chance high risk of pleasure and being limited to talking about having no benefit whatsoever.

For purely argumentative purposes I can go along with suffering = bad, and happiness = good — staticphoton

You don't need to but I agree let's start with that.

However I don't agree with the stance that personal interpretation and moral valuation of suffering/pleasure, despair/happiness, should dictate the outcome of 2 billion years of evolution — staticphoton

What else should dictate it? "2 billion years of evolution" is not a person with interests. So I don't see a reason why we shouldn't dictate what happens to it. We decide the course of our evolution. We already did so when we made societies, medicine, etc. Again, evolution doesn't have interests, humans do

I also don't agree with the unstated conclusion that human existence is a mistake of nature that needs to be corrected by eliminating the species through voluntary attrition or any other means. — staticphoton

That does not follow from the premises I laid out. I would like you to show me ho wit does.

In my personal view, the fact that the matter, energy, and space-time that originated in the big bang has evolved to become aware of itself, is astonishing feat far beyond my comprehension. Although I am not a religious mas, I see homo sapiens and consciousness as a miracle of nature. — staticphoton

Me too

Using a simple line of reasoning to deliberately end what I believe to be nature greatest achievement over the fact that pain exists, would be unacceptable on my part — staticphoton

Again. "Nature" is not a person. You're not harming anyone by not having children. Whereas you could harm someone by having children. That's what this boils down to

I'm trying to understand how it makes sense to talk about any chance of pleasure if we're limited to talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever." — Terrapin Station

There is benefit if the expected value of a situation goes up. Example:

Situation A: 5 points of pleasure, 50% chance. 5 points of suffering 50% chance
Situation B: 6 points of pleasure, 50% chance. 4 points of suffering 50% chance

Situation B is a benefit from situation A because the expected value of the whole thing positive ((6-4)/2 = 1) while the expected value of A is 0 ((5-5)/2 = 0)

Situation C: 10 points of pleasure, 50% chance. 10 points of suffering 50% chance

Situation C is not a benefit from situation A because the expected value is still 0 EVEN THOUGH the possible amount of pleasure increases

I'm saying it's morally good to take someone from situation A to B but not from situatoin A to C. Because C, overall, is no better than A because both pleasure and pain are amplified equally. The only time when if it's ok to take someone from situation X to Y (for me) is when Y has a higher expected value AND less or the same amount of possible suffering. If those two conditions aren't met then consent is required.

There is benefit if the expected value of a situation goes up — khaled

You stipulated that we're talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever from the shift," right?

We decide the course of our evolution. We already did so when we made societies, medicine, etc. — khaled

I don't share that belief. I'm not speaking of social evolution, but natural evolution... social evolution has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Again. "Nature" is not a person. You're not harming anyone by not having children. Whereas you could harm someone by having children. That's what this boils down to — khaled

Also disagree.
Accepting the premise and thinking it through the reality of implementation, it would be fair to assume that only those who are morally responsible would make the choice of not having children. The morally responsible would eventually disappear, leaving a world inhabited with the morally irresponsible. It would not be unreasonable to assume that suffering would increase in a world inhabited by morally irresponsible human beings.

So in reality, since there is no realistic method for both the morally responsible and morally irresponsible to participate proportionally, the best you can do is to reduce suffering by somehow making the number of morally responsible to increase at the expense of the morally irresponsible.

I suppose that A: Once the morally responsible have taken over the world, then B: They can stop having children and put an end to it. But I'm not seeing A happening anytime soon.

Accepting the premise and thinking it through the reality of implementation, it would be fair to assume that only those who are morally responsible would make the choice of not having children. The morally responsible would eventually disappear, leaving a world inhabited with the morally irresponsible. It would not be unreasonable to assume that suffering would increase in a world inhabited by morally irresponsible human beings. — staticphoton

That's not how it works because "morally responsible" isn't the same as "blood type O". It can be learned. You aren't born with it. That's why there has been an antinatalist in most societies you can think of. Even though antinatalism is at a strict disadvantage when it comes to propagating itself across time for obvious reasons

by somehow making the number of morally responsible to increase at the expense of the morally irresponsible. — staticphoton

That's impossible. Unless you're proposing killing the morally irresponsible

I suppose that A: Once the morally responsible have taken over the world, then B: They can stop having children and put an end to it. But I'm not seeing A happening anytime soon. — staticphoton

Me neiter. I never debated whether or not antinatalism is practical. I know it won't work. That doesn't mean it doesn't make logical sense from premises everyone employs. Again so far, you haven't disagreed with the two main premises of antinatalism the first being "making happy people is morally neutral" and the second being "making suffering people is morally bad".

You stipulated that we're talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever from the shift," right? — Terrapin Station

Yes and by "benefit" I meant that the "mean value" of the situation goes up. Not that the maximum pleasure possible goes up. As I explained. I'm not sure why we're still talking about this when I already said "You can forget about the “and they don’t benefit from it whatsoever” bit. What about an example of taking someone from a less risky to a more risky position without their consent that is considered ok."

I'm not sure why we're still talking about this when I already said "You can forget about the “and they don’t benefit from it whatsoever” bit. — khaled

Sorry, I missed you saying that.

What about an example of taking someone from a less risky to a more risky position without their consent that is considered ok."

Okay, so one very standard example of that is sending a child to school.

That's not how it works because "morally responsible" isn't the same as "blood type O". It can be learned. You aren't born with it. — khaled

Whether it is learned or not is of no consequence for my statement.

Again so far, you haven't disagreed with the two main premises of antinatalism the first being "making happy people is morally neutral" and the second being "making suffering people is morally bad". — khaled

I can't agree or disagree because the key words on that sentence (happy people, morally neutral, suffering, morally bad) are ambiguous at best, their deeper meaning reduced to labels. I see nothing to gain by having anyone say "I agree" or "I disagree" other than your personal triumph in this argument.

the two main premises of antinatalism the first being "making happy people is morally neutral" and the second being "making suffering people is morally bad" — khaled

Neither of which are true or false (since no moral stance is). Thus calling them "premises" doesn't even really work.

Thus calling them "premises" doesn't even really work. — Terrapin Station

Why not?

I can't agree or disagree because the key words on that sentence (happy people, morally neutral, suffering, morally bad) are ambiguous at best — staticphoton

but I thought we were reducing it to pleasure = good, pain = bad for the sake of argument?

Whether it is learned or not is of no consequence for my statement. — staticphoton

Yes it is. Because a world of the "morally irresponsible" is impossible. The chances of it are highly unlikely.

Premises have a truth value. Logic doesn't make much sense outside of the notion of truth value.

You can assume a moral statement is true and reason from there.

Okay, so one very standard example of that is sending a child to school. — Terrapin Station

If we were emplying the "doesn't benefit at all" limit then this would be a bad example because in every single instance of sending a child to school, they end up in a more beneficial situation.

But also asking the vast majority of children if they want to go to school or not will have them answer postively in the long term. So i don't think it's much of a forced decision anyway.

You can assume a moral statement is true and reason from there. — khaled

It doesn't make any sense to assume it's true, because that's a category error.

In math how do you know that if A = B and B= C that A = C. That's a premise. And it's taken to be true because it's not provable. Same thing in reasoning with moral statements.

If we were emplying the "doesn't benefit at all" limit then this would be a bad example — khaled

You just said to forget about that. If you're not forgetting about it then we're back to trying to make sense of the initial comment.

But also asking the vast majority of children if they want to go to school or not will have them answer postively in the long term. So i don't think it's much of a forced decision anyway. — khaled

So something is consensual just in case most people would say they had a positive opinion of it in the long term.

But you're suggesting that most people don't have a positive opinion of life in the long term?