Haha. I don't know if I have more faith in people's reasoning/analytic skills, but it does not mean I'll give up arguing and trying to appeal to their reasoning :). But you are right in that oft-times the preference is "baked in" to the person's psyche from all the cues provided from family and society as a youth. — schopenhauer1

Well keep up the tough work. If you start convincing large numbers then I will need to analyze your techniques, so that I can apply it to other walks of life. The older I get, the more I view humanity's biggest problem to be a regular and persistent avoidance of critical thinking by most people. Give the average adult a 5th grade math problem and see how they simply look to the person next to them and wait for an answer. However, give the average person on this forum a math problem, and they will likely enjoy the challenge of the puzzle (unless it is too easy or too hard)...but we should be aware that we are exceptions.

Maybe it is just my life. But I only have one friend and one family member that enjoy getting into any sort of philosophical debate/discussion. The rest actually get annoyed when their opinions are challenged (I actually get rather excited in real life if someone challenges an assertion of mine - "great! here are the 500 reasons I believe that, what do you think is wrong?")

On my view, there is no higher state of 'happiness' anyway, than the way in which the antinatalist conceives of the unborn. To be unbound from all causes and conditions, where "exists", and "does not exist" doesn't even apply. How could any temporary experience of happiness or pleasure in this world even compare to this? All positive experiences in this world are filtered through the lens of our temporal embodiment as a deprivational human animal - subject to stress, pain, need. suffering, aging and inevitable death. If impregnating a woman somehow thrusts conditions on what was previously unbound by causes and conditions, then it is the ultimate crime. Compared to the timeless peace of the unborn/unconditioned - the experiences of this world are nothing but stress and suffering.

All positive experiences in this world are filtered through the lens of our temporal embodiment as a deprivational human animal - subject to stress, pain, need. suffering, aging and inevitable death. — Inyenzi

What exactly does that mean? Can you elaborate? Are you saying that happiness is a temporary escape from the pain, stress etc. that people experience? To put it another way, are you saying that we only want happiness because, when we are happy, we do not suffer (even if for only a short amount of time)?

Good points.

On my view, there is no higher state of 'happiness' anyway, than the way in which the antinatalist conceives of the unborn. To be unbound from all causes and conditions, where "exists", and "does not exist" doesn't even apply. How could any temporary experience of happiness or pleasure in this world even compare to this? All positive experiences in this world are filtered through the lens of our temporal embodiment as a deprivational human animal - subject to stress, pain, need. suffering, aging and inevitable death. If impregnating a woman somehow thrusts conditions on what was previously unbound by causes and conditions, then it is the ultimate crime. Compared to the timeless peace of the unborn/unconditioned - the experiences of this world are nothing but stress and suffering. — Inyenzi

Very well-stated. The deprivational human animal and the conditions thrust upon what was unbound by causes and conditions is a great way to put the existential problem. In other words, it is not even just about brute utilitarian considerations, but the structural deprivational suffering of what it even means to be born. This structural type of suffering is often too nuanced for people to even consider, which is part of what @ZhouBoTong is talking about for people not taking the time to reason. However, it can be said, as in politics, it seems like otherwise rational people often take perplexingly non-rational arguments when it comes to unquestioned beliefs like being pro-procreation.

To be unbound from all causes and conditions, where "exists", and "does not exist" doesn't even apply. — Inyenzi

Dang, almost sounds like Buddhist enlightenment.

the experiences of this world are nothing but stress and suffering. — Inyenzi

Now that sounds exactly like Buddhism (I think, this is coming from someone that really only understands Buddhism through comments on this forum and some fictional novels by Jin Yong and Gu Long :grimace:).

Interesting. I wonder what serious buddhists would think of antinatalism...Maybe you are one of those people? which would answer my question, I suppose.

I’ve only glossed over a lot of these posts, but it seems to me you have a valid point.

It’s possible that the aspiration for ‘happiness’ is behind a lot of mental health issues, or possibly even the warped behaviour of humankind. The justification for this huge crime, birth, is that you will find happiness. What a crashing let down for those who don’t find it or suspect it’s a sham.

I have grown children, both pretty average in their outcomes, but a lot of the time I wonder ‘what was the point?’ A sentiment also held by my wife occasionally.

Of course, what might lie behind the insane human behaviour is not the hopeless and ethereal promise of happiness but just being born.

Yes, it is seems absurd to argue that my existence is separated from whatever situation that my parents underwent to "have" me.
But that is how it feels for me to be me. I landed on your shore. Or maybe my own.
I don't object to the idea that procreation is not a right per se. But the idea that is something we can point to as a thing bothers me. It makes it sound like we understand more than what I have seen demonstrated.

I have one troubling thought, though. Having been born I don’t want to die.

Indeed, I think procreation violates a principle of non-aggression. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me that the purpose of all life is to survive long enough to procreate, that the only purpose/desire/will of life is to reproduce itself: that’s the nature of life. Which is possibly why we regard it as tragic when someone young dies.

The principles of non-aggression have very little place in this, don’t you think? We reproduce for the same reasons as all other life forms. The consequences are of no interest, only that a replica has been produced.

The horror for us is in being conscious of our circumstances.

What a crashing let down for those who don’t find it or suspect it’s a sham. — Brett

Right on.

I have grown children, both pretty average in their outcomes, but a lot of the time I wonder ‘what was the point?’ A sentiment also held by my wife occasionally. — Brett

I wonder if more people think this than admit it. Can I ask what your motivations were, if you can remember when having them? Was there an overriding pressure? Pride that you made something from yourself? Was it really some "instinct"? What does an "instinct" to want a child even look like? How would it be differentiated from any other preference? How can you prove wanting a child is any more an instinct than wanting that book or game or tickets to that concert or house?

Of course, what might lie behind the insane human behaviour is not the hopeless and ethereal promise of happiness but just being born. — Brett

For the parent or person who is going to be born? It matters not to the person who might be born (as they are not born yet).

Yes, it is seems absurd to argue that my existence is separated from whatever situation that my parents underwent to "have" me.
But that is how it feels for me to be me. I landed on your shore. Or maybe my own.
I don't object to the idea that procreation is not a right per se. But the idea that is something we can point to as a thing bothers me. It makes it sound like we understand more than what I have seen demonstrated. — Valentinus

I don't understand your objection. What do we understand more than what you have seen?

It seems to me that the purpose of all life is to survive long enough to procreate, that the only purpose/desire/will of life is to reproduce itself: that’s the nature of life. Which is possibly why we regard it as tragic when someone young dies.

The principles of non-aggression have very little place in this, don’t you think? We reproduce for the same reasons as all other life forms. The consequences are of no interest, only that a replica has been produced.

The horror for us is in being conscious of our circumstances. — Brett

I'll throw out the question again though, how is it that procreation is an instinct? I can see the pleasure from sex as a sort of "instinct" in that sexual pleasure feels good with no real interpretation or analysis there. However, a concept as complex as procreation is linguistically-based, and personality-motivated in terms of preference. Thus what makes this concept of starting a new life and raising it any different than any other conceptual preference like buying X item, or making X life decision? Often these are just preferences we have in our decisions, not automatic reactions to stimuli like a reflex or an instinct. Perhaps we reproduce mainly due to social drives, not inborn "instinctual" ones. Perhaps we are mixing these causes up because it is so pervasive it seems like it is inborn.

...but we should be aware that we are exceptions. — ZhouBoTong

Indeed, and do we not depend on the rule as our foil?

In other words, being born leads to the possibility of pursuing happiness and this reason is powerful enough to override any negatives to being born for many people. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps. And perhaps all this is just a rationalization for an instinct that overpowers us --especially when it's coupled with what-one-does. Personally I agree that there's something evil or questionable in foisting existence on others. It does violate certain intuitive principles.

All this comes to late for me, of course. I'm here already, and anyone who reads this is here already. If a few of us resist the urge to breed for various reasons, most won't. In the long run, though, it seems that are species must finally fail and go extinct. Is this a tragedy or a comfort? Depends on my mood. Some part of us wants the peace and finality of the grave, even though we won't be able to enjoy it when we have it. Death is a strange object of desire.

I wonder if more people think this than admit it. Can I ask what your motivations were, if you can remember when having them? Was there an overriding pressure? Pride that you made something from yourself? Was it really some "instinct"? What does an "instinct" to want a child even look like? How would it be differentiated from any other preference? How can you prove wanting a child is any more an instinct than wanting that book or game or tickets to that concert or house? — schopenhauer1

I’d always, and still do, love little children: their minds, their little bodies, their purity of spirit. I was 30 when my first was born. I didn’t feel any pressure at any level. My wife had the same feelings about children, but I can’t know what else was going on in her mind. I didn’t view having children as any statement about my masculinity, or myself. Having children was purely for my pleasure. I thought I would give them a better life than I had, that they would be better people in terms of relationships, confidence, achievements, etc. Later I learned that what I thought were my weaknesses and doubts weren’t specific to me but was just about being human. So, my children now live through all the things I did, give or take a few things: relationships, jobs, security, money, friendships, doubt, weariness with the battle and the world.

I don’t know if my reasons are like our unlike my wife’s. Her love for children is pretty strong, but how do I separate love for children from instinct?

My idea about the instinct to reproduce is based on what I observe in the world. All forms of life, conscious and unconscious, reproduce themselves, male animals fight and injure each other to claim a male, animals, male and female, are born with physical characteristics to attract the opposite sex.

Is there any proof of instinct? I’m not sure. I need to think about that a bit more. Usually someone’s questioning of what I say helpS me clarify my thinking.

What does an "instinct" to want a child even look like? — schopenhauer1

Sit among a group of young women when there is a newborn baby present and you might get some idea.

However, a concept as complex as procreation is linguistically-based, and personality-motivated in terms of preference. — schopenhauer1

Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

How about slavery, conquering other peoples, public executions, torture, etc. that happened for millenia? These people would tell you the same thing. The wrong actions are a pattern. Doesn't mean they are right. — schopenhauer1

I am not arguing that a pattern that is present for a long time is right. I am arguing that breaking that pattern bears the onus. My values, which I don't consider objective, include disliking all those things on the list. I would assume when encountering someone who thinks those are ok and can point to a long tradition would consider me to have the onus, especially if they have the power to carry them out in their country or culture. I don't consider them right, but it would be something I would, and do, struggle against. I feel not the slighest urge to try to end the continued existence of all sentient life. That doesn't fit with my values.

Being a parent is a preference, a want. I don't need to prove this any more than I need to prove wanting a new car is a want. We would have to define what is natural and not natural. If you don't do X you will die is natural. Wants and preferences are a mixture of cultural cues and personal preferences. Procreation falls under this. Breathing does not. Without breathing you will die and be in horrible pain and discomfort. Breathing can be stopped and will lead to death. Procreating does not. Someone not getting a new car might be upset, but they will not die. — schopenhauer1

I notice that you did not respond to all the other examples I made: running, eating meat, and so on. You just focus on breathing and parenting. Nor to do you address the fact that every single species, including all other social mammals and thus primates procreate. Procreation seems to be natural to all life. And note here we are nowhere near the territory of the naturalist fallacy. The issue is, is it natural. And the answer is obvious. You avoided dealing with the fact that your argument that one can choose not to means it is not natural does not hold, since there are many natural things that we can choose to do or not. Even individual animals may not choose to do the same things other individuals of their species do. This does not suddenly mean the others are not being natural.

Again, forcing people into life, even with some positive outcomes is still forcing. How does this get to bypass the non-aggression principle? — schopenhauer1

I don't think framing it as aggression works. We all make decisions every day that affect other people without their consent. Perhaps these can be framed as aggression, but generally I think it is misleading. In any case I don't follow some 'never aggress' principle.

I had a whole thread on this.. things that cause physical pleasure can be considered "natural".. but procreation still doesn't fall under this, only sex. Please see this link to see what I deem to fall under "natural" and reasoning for this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6896/what-distinguishes-natural-human-preferences-from-simply-personal-ones — schopenhauer1

Hello. I mentioned sex to demonstrate that just because some people choose not to have sex, it does not make it unnatural. If you agree then your argument that procreation is not natural because we can choose not to do it does not hold. You are shifting the context. You argued that if we can choose not to, it is not natural. Your link only backs up my arguing, as do the other examples of things that we do that are natural that some members of our species abstrain from and all could abstain from.

I can only say causing suffering and forcing others are first principles. — schopenhauer1

They may be your first principles, but they are not mind. I certainly try to avoid hurting people, unless other values arise. I do not give either of those a veto power, and I doubt you do either. I doubt you will stop arguing for anti-natalism if you find that some people find the discussion unpleasant. I doubt your personal life involves avoiding all possible ways your actions might lead to people suffering. But in any case, you assume that your values are correct and see others as having to accept your principles by default. I don't accept either as a veto value. Your onus to show I should and that they are somehow objectively good.

I already stated earlier that we've held popular notions about other things such as slavery and this is not excuse for why something is justified. — schopenhauer1

I have not made any argument saying that X is popular so it is good. There is a practical onus on anyone wanting to change things. I don't share your values. You have done nothing to convince me that it was best if all sentient species stopped procreating. That that would be a better universe. All fauna stop existing. That doesn't seem better to me. I think others will disagree also based on their values. Since procreation is natural, sentient life will continue. This doesn't mean it is therefore right, but the onus is on you to stop this all somehow. Personally I would hate it if you and the other anti-natalists managed to end all animals life - there is in fact growing evidence that plants may feel pain, so it might be the end of all life that will satisfy your value.

If there are objective values, it seems possible to me that you, a fallible human, should admit your values might be incorrect or incorrectly prioritized and you are therefore risking causing harm. And that's if there are objective values.

But my main reaction to your post is that you avoided actually dealing with my points. You recontexualized at least one - the sex one, which was not arguing that sex being natural means procreation is natural or good, but rather that sex is natural DESPITE it being something we can choose to abstrain from - countering you conflation of things we can choose not to do and unnatural acts.

I had to repeat myself in the previous post and yet you continued to conveniently interpret things incorrectly and then added in the evasions I mentioned above. And in this post I have had to repeat things a third time since you recontextualize in convenient ways, making up straw men arguments and not dealing with arguments.

To put it simply, you are wasting my time.

I'll ignore you at least for a while.

To put it simply, you are wasting my time.

I'll ignore you at least for a while. — Coben

So it sounds like answering you would then also be a waste, but I'll answer anyways because I can't let mischaracterized arguments stand.

I am arguing that breaking that pattern bears the onus. My values, which I don't consider objective, include disliking all those things on the list. I would assume when encountering someone who thinks those are ok and can point to a long tradition would consider me to have the onus, especially if they have the power to carry them out in their country or culture. I don't consider them right, but it would be something I would, and do, struggle against. — Coben

The bolded part doesn't make sense to me.. "what" would be something you would do.. not try to end the act that you consider wrong in the long tradition? Anyways, think about the abolitionists- those who wanted to end slavery in the American South prior to the Civil War. They weren't forcing anything, but they strongly advocated. Nothing wrong with that. Vegans do the same thing. Unlike the aggression of forcing life on others, antinatalists don't force their views on others, so this argument is a red herring. It is simply an argument one can take on or not.

The issue is, is it natural. And the answer is obvious. You avoided dealing with the fact that your argument that one can choose not to means it is not natural does not hold, since there are many natural things that we can choose to do or not. Even individual animals may not choose to do the same things other individuals of their species do. This does not suddenly mean the others are not being natural. — Coben

So we disagree with defintions of natural here. You probably didn't read my thread link where I discuss my ideas on this. What I said:
1) A preference is natural if without it, one is in physical discomfort that eventually leads to death. Hunger, temperature regulation, and thirst would fall into this category. Companionship would not or at least, the link of lack of relationships to death would be much farther removed than the first three.

2) A preference is natural if it brings some sort of physical pleasure that is amenable through what the bodies can produce without "adding" something man-made to it. So sexual pleasure, good tasting food, a warm bath, might bring some sort of chemically-induced good feelings. One can refine this further and say man-made things can count too (like drugs) because it works on pathways that are "natural". Thus opioids work on naturally working pleasure-centers (or pain-blocking centers).

Decisions like "What am I going to do today?" and "Should I do X"? Anything with a deliberative aspect to it where one decides what one wants is a personal preference, not "natural" as in "instinctual".

Hello. I mentioned sex to demonstrate that just because some people choose not to have sex, it does not make it unnatural. If you agree then your argument that procreation is not natural because we can choose not to do it does not hold. You are shifting the context. You argued that if we can choose not to, it is not natural. Your link only backs up my arguing, as do the other examples of things that we do that are natural that some members of our species abstrain from and all could abstain from. — Coben

And this goes right to my last definitions of natural. It is the pleasure from sex that is natural, not the decision to have it or not- that is a personal preference. However, the pleasure principle, the idea that pleasure is overwhemingly on the side of preferring it. I see none of this in the actual decision of procreation. Same goes for running or eating meat... It can only be argued that the overwhelming physical pleasure of meat or "runner's high" would count I guess, but only as much as it is reduced to a physical pleasure and even then, it is not as strong as something like breathing as it the physical pleasure itself is very far removed from being in horrible pain and death because one does not choose it. The actual enjoyment of the physical pleasure is a naturally induced process that is immediate (the nerves do what they do to create the pleasure).

I don't think framing it as aggression works. We all make decisions every day that affect other people without their consent. Perhaps these can be framed as aggression, but generally I think it is misleading. In any case I don't follow some 'never aggress' principle. — Coben

But I think you do. We are not talking collateral damage (although that is another good reason against birth) but do you believe forcing others to follow your beliefs is acceptable because you think it is good for them to do so? Most likely in all areas of life, you will say no.

They may be your first principles, but they are not mind. I certainly try to avoid hurting people, unless other values arise. I do not give either of those a veto power, and I doubt you do either. I doubt you will stop arguing for anti-natalism if you find that some people find the discussion unpleasant. I doubt your personal life involves avoiding all possible ways your actions might lead to people suffering. But in any case, you assume that your values are correct and see others as having to accept your principles by default. I don't accept either as a veto value. Your onus to show I should and that they are somehow objectively good. — Coben

As I mentioned, once born, collateral damage is inevitable. I accept that life has collateral harm ONCE BORN, but creating that harm from nothing is unnecessary and wrong. Also, it is not JUST about harm but a force aspect. Someone is not forced to read my thread, and if they do and are traumatized that goes back to my collateral damage point (it happens only once born). However, prior to birth, no one is forcing anything on anyone yet, after birth someone is forcing their agenda/view on a new person who will then have collateral damage (like for you, reading an antinatalist philosophy forum thread). I am certainly not forcing you to read this though beyond the initial post.

So to reiterate, your false categorization of procreation under "natural" and your misleading ideas about how I framed sexual pleasure led you to some mischaracterizations and thus red herrings regarding my argument.

Personally I agree that there's something evil or questionable in foisting existence on others. It does violate certain intuitive principles. — Eee

Right on.

My idea about the instinct to reproduce is based on what I observe in the world. All forms of life, conscious and unconscious, reproduce themselves, male animals fight and injure each other to claim a male, animals, male and female, are born with physical characteristics to attract the opposite sex. — Brett

Yeah but yours came from a personal preference.. other animals simply "do" acts without deliberation or personal preference. It is more like a computer program "If I get this input, I will do this output".

Can you elaborate on that a bit more? — Brett

I will simply re-post my whole discussion on the idea of natural from another post I had because it will do a better job than rephrasing it here. See below:

I want a red car, four slice toaster, a number of books, and a maple tree in the front yard. These would most likely be categorized as personal preferences. I want food, water, shelter, and companionship. These would most likely be categorized as "natural" human preferences. But are they? What distinguishes personal preferences from natural/instinctual ones?

I say this because I think the lines are often misdrawn for cases like procreation. Hunger seems to be more on the natural/instinctual side of the spectrum. Whether to read this or that book seems to be on the personal side of the spectrum. Procreation is often put in the natural/instinctual side of the spectrum, but I argue that it should really be on the personal side.

First off, we'd have to distinguish what makes a preference natural. One might argue three ways here:

1) A preference is natural if without it, one is in physical discomfort that eventually leads to death. Hunger, temperature regulation, and thirst would fall into this category. Companionship would not or at least, the link of lack of relationships to death would be much farther removed than the first three.

2) A preference is natural if it brings some sort of physical pleasure that is amenable through what the bodies can produce without "adding" something man-made to it. So sexual pleasure, good tasting food, a warm bath, might bring some sort of chemically-induced good feelings. One can refine this further and say man-made things can count too (like drugs) because it works on pathways that are "natural". Thus opioids work on naturally working pleasure-centers (or pain-blocking centers).

3) A preference is natural if without it, the function of the species is nullified. Thus for example, humans operate using language and social cues. Without being in fully functioning social relationships, the human species would cease to function how the human species operates. In effect, its fundamental nature would change or go extinct. The desire to produce more humans, some might say, might fall into this category, as without it, the functioning of society (and human society specifically) disappears. Thus, psychological and social functions like companionship, achievement, curiosity, and other "higher" social/psychological motivations may fall into this as well.

I believe that 1 is the strongest candidate for what "counts" as natural. The consequences are most apparent as not following the dictates of the preference lead to literal death and catastrophic discomfort and pain.

I believe that 2 is not as strong. The consequences lead to a less stark consequence. Not following certain physical pleasures. However, it is stronger than 3 as a candidate for what is "natural" as the physical pleasures that arise from it cannot really be altered without substantial work. Physical pleasure is physical pleasure, left to itself, with very few exceptions.

I believe that 3 is the weakest. It is very easy to manipulate 3 from a "natural" preference to a socialized norm. What we "think" as social necessities might be simply social conditioning. We "want" this or that preference because humans have a social "need" for it gets very blurry and is rife with personal preferences (shaped from social cues) that masquerade as natural ones. I don't even think this category should be considered as it is too fraught with these types of errors.

Then there are things that don't fall under "natural" preferences at all. These are personal ones. What clothes to where, what kind of bread to get, etc. I think, contrary to what most people tend to believe, procreation falls under personal preference. People conflate several things including physical pleasure, and the centrality of procreation to evolutionary theory, for why procreation is natural. However, that is all it is, a conflation. Physical pleasure indeed may be "natural" (as per category 2), but the consequence (procreation) is not. There are a huge amount of social, psychological, and personal decisions around procreation that are not simply physical pleasure. Procreation certainly doesn't fall under 1 (without it an individual will die a discomforting and tortuous death). Rather, people put it under the vague 3 category of some necessary social functioning. As I tried to argue earlier, 3 is too vague and rife with personal preferences masquerading as "natural" to count as even its own category.

So what is left? What is left is procreation is simply a personal preference like any other personal preference. I want coffee, eggs, and to read the newspaper. I want this cereal and not that one. The preference to procreate is simply one other personal preference, albeit one that impacts a person's life significantly. It still does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2 which may indeed count as natural (though even 2 can be argued against). Being that it does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2, it is thus a personal preference.

So what is left? What is left is procreation is simply a personal preference like any other personal preference. I want coffee, eggs, and to read the newspaper. I want this cereal and not that one. The preference to procreate is simply one other personal preference, albeit one that impacts a person's life significantly. It still does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2 which may indeed count as natural (though even 2 can be argued against). Being that it does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2, it is thus a personal preference. — schopenhauer1

Thanks for that. Quite a neat little argument. I think this is a very blurry area. Females and males might be found in different categories in terms of ‘natural’ and ‘preference’. Males may approach procreation as a ‘preference’, but I don’t know the workings of the interior life of a female enough to know where to place them. This idea of preference is obviously where the difference lies between us and animals. Contraception and abortion are preferences that can override what might be a natural/instinctive drive. From my perspective it’s hard to know if love of children by a female is a preference or instinct.

#3 leaves us both dangling, I think.

Edit: it occurs to me, though, that of course humans would find procreation an imperative and justify it as instinctive, because it justifies their existence and everything they think and do. We cannot even trust our own explanations.

I just want to add some thoughts about whether a woman's love for children is natural or a preference.

Is the desire for love natural or a preference?

Can you chose to love someone, which would make it a preference?

Is falling in love with someone specific natural or a preference?

I just want to add some thoughts about whether a woman's love for children is natural or a preference.

Is the desire for love natural or a preference?

Can you chose to love someone, which would make it a preference?

Is falling in love with someone specific natural or a preference? — Brett

Yes, I wonder this too. This is another case of number 3? Isn't it really just social cues retrospectively attributed to being "natural"? I guess it can be proven we tend to like symmetry, and then form personal preferences for what is found "attractive". We also tend to care a lot about people we form relationships with and get along with. How these relationships form is complex but usually out of loneliness as a driving force. From there the social cues probably takeover as to the significance of the relationships and the goals. Boredom, loneliness, and the preference for physical gratification lead to forming romantic relationships that often lead to deeper bonded relationships of care and concern.

But is that "natural"? I don't know. It see natural as very much "if/then" statements. Thus, an ape in estrus would mate during that time. The females may look for cues of dominance, leadership and other behaviors in the male. I guess that is natural. But perhaps there is even some learning going on there. The daughter ape learns from other females what to look for. I am no ape expert though and I really don't feel like looking up articles on it right now (but you can!).

But in humans the reason we form romantic bonds (besides the physical pleasure) is much more existential. Loneliness and boredom are sort of a human "condition" but is it "natural"? That seems like a category error of sorts to explain a whole host of mental phenomena. Humans have a whole host of options, and things like "religion" and "relationships" and the broad category of "entertainment" are somewhat accessible ways to allay this existential angst and boredom. However, to call this drive to counter this existential angst "natural" is a bit odd. So there is perhaps a category that falls under neither "natural" or "cultural" but just a sort of epiphenomina that happens with intelligent creatures where we don't know what to do with ourselves.

We also tend to care a lot about people we form relationships with and get along with. How these relationships form is complex but usually out of loneliness as a driving force — schopenhauer1

I think these two points are relevant. I do think it’s very likely that loneliness, or the idea of the future alone, is the driving force behind forming relationships, and there are many varied relationships that serve the very many existential ( if that’s correct in this context) moments in someone’s life, from cuddling up to someone to sharing troubling thoughts or having a cry. I suspect a lot of men just drift into relationships, then drift into having a family. Women may have a more committed agenda, but really still having their own agenda, which might be; find a reliable, good man, get pregnant, raise a family. So as you say, not really instinct, more preference or desire.

Once a relationship is formed we have a lot invested, so we do care more about those closest to us and hope they return it. Society does present the ideal model to us as to how this works. Of course we know this model is not really true, but we persevere.

The other point, in terms of natural, is that we are no longer animals in the sense of the wild, with our natural instincts. People are so loosened from their instincts that they not only don’t run from danger, they actually walk right into it.

So, even regarding my questions about love, I have to say that preference tends to win out.

Forming relationships is instinctive. At one stage it increased chances for physical survival. Same as having children (survival of species/tribe and even more simply survival of yourself when you got too old to hunt)

Now we have comparatively ‘mastered’ pure physical survival and use the same instincts to seek realisation/actualisation.

Forming relationships is more aimed at this now. We seek out people with similar world views and in forming a relationship we validate each others beleifs.

As for having children. I think it’s mostly residual basic instinct that is now pointed internally and that’s why we question it. “How does this fit in to our process of self actualising?”

Also when you say “forcing a baby against their will”
How do we know what constitutes a “will”? We are assuming that the unborn child had a “will” before being born and assuming their will was ‘not to be born’?
Are you not?

Your arguments are always so well structured, schopenhauer. This was an open door that I couldn’t resist, for argument’s sake...

Like any ethical debate, it comes down to first principles. If you don't believe forcing others to do things is wrong, then this argument would not matter to you. However, if the scenario is thus:

You think that if you paid fairly for your property and have possession on it and the party who gave it to you agreed to the exchange or giving of the property, and that property was stolen or taken without permission is wrong... — schopenhauer1

The extent to which this is ‘wrong’ is dependent upon whether I believe that the external objects and money I possess are a physical extension of my person. Australian Aboriginal culture, for instance, does not consider objects to be a physical extension of one’s person. They don’t value property ownership as such in the same way that we do - or fences, for that matter. As a result, a large number of young children over the years have been punished for trespassing, or incarcerated for ‘stealing’ what was not being used, and from their point of view, was simply there for the taking. It’s difficult to instil into these children that it’s wrong to steal without undermining some of the more admirable qualities of their culture and upbringing.

You think that someone who believes X, Y, Z political beliefs at gunpoint forces you to recant your position, sign a waiver that you will only follow his/her point of view is wrong.. — schopenhauer1

If someone thinks that they can change my point of view or beliefs by pointing a gun at me and forcing me to sign something, then they are very much mistaken. They have no idea what it takes to change a belief.

You think that someone physically harming someone else is wrong... — schopenhauer1

Not all physical harm is ‘wrong’. What we refer to as damage, injury, pain or adverse effect includes all instances of growth, change, birth and death. It is the intent (or lack thereof) behind the action that determines whether it’s ‘wrong’.

These are all examples of agreeing with the non-aggression principle (implicitly). If one believes that consistency is important in ethical matters, then procreation too falls under this principle like the others. If procreation truly is forcing something onto another, this principle has been violated, and would thus be a problem. So, most people do implicitly believe this principle but turn a blind eye when or don't even think it relevant when it comes to procreation. This is a consistency problem.

So to reiterate, it comes to first principles. If you don't think aggression is an ethical issue, this won't matter. However, for those who do think so (most non-sociopaths it would seem), then yes this would be an issue and more a matter of consistency than questioning the actual principle itself. — schopenhauer1

Aggression is forcefulness of feeling or action. Non-aggression is not a first principle in my book. Not a sociopath, though, as far as I can tell. For me, the first principles are awareness instead of ignorance, connection over isolation and collaboration rather than exclusion. What is ‘wrong’ about stealing is ignorance; what is ‘wrong’ about forcing political beliefs is exclusion; what is ‘wrong’ about physically harming someone is a lack of connection.

As for what is ‘wrong’ about procreation, the way I see it, it isn’t aggression or forcing something onto another. Like harm, it’s the intent (or lack thereof) behind the action that determines whether it’s ‘wrong’.

Also when you say “forcing a baby against their will”
How do we know what constitutes a “will”? We are assuming that the unborn child had a “will” before being born and assuming their will was ‘not to be born’?
Are you not? — Yanni

I didn't say "forcing a baby against their will". There is no baby to force a will prior to birth. Rather, forcing anything physically is an aggressive act, thus violating the principle of non-aggression. It doesn't matter what the later outcome is. You can violate a principle and have it turn out well, that doesn't justify the initial violation.