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. — Possibility

Then they have different first principles regarding property. However, I bet you certain aspects of non-aggression are followed in that culture, and I would simply use that. For example, they probably thought it aggressive when European colonists almost wiped out their whole people and way of life.

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. — Possibility

Of course, same here. However, it was an aggressive act to try to force your hand, and to compel you in the moment to save your life.

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’. — Possibility

Non-aggression is non-aggression. Just because you THINK something is good for SOMEONE ELSE, doesn't mean you get to force your view onto someone else, period. That is following the principle consistently. Good intentions on one side, does not mean it is wanted or needed for the party it is directed towards. In this case, birth affects a whole lifetime. That is not a minor thing you are affecting/effecting.

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’. — Possibility

Again, this isn't a minor event, you are forcing a life onto someone. You seem to posit an agenda of collaboration, et al over non-aggression. People need to be born to collaborate. But this doesn't make sense. If no one was born in the first place, no one would need to collaborate. So perhaps if we were to compromise, we can say once born, it is best practice to collaborate, but it shouldn't be forced. It certainly shouldn't be force recruited by creating a being so that they can collaborate. Rather, it would be more a post-facto reality of having been born and living with other people.

If no one was born in the first place, no one would need to collaborate. — schopenhauer1

It’s the same old “non-existence is better than existence”, which is your own personal belief. It would be quite ironical if when your body dies you don’t really die, that you keep existing in this universe in some way, and then you have to deal with convincing anti-natalists that they are doing nothing to make the world a better place.

Maybe you really did exist in some way before your birth, and you’ll keep existing in some way after your death.

However, I bet you certain aspects of non-aggression are followed in that culture, and I would simply use that. — schopenhauer1

To me, my birth was not an act of aggression. When I was born I didn’t cry, I looked around with curiosity.

Maybe you really did exist in some way before your birth, and you’ll keep existing in some way after your death. — leo

All I have is the information I have now. As far as we know, there is nothing more than what we know through our experiences and senses.

To me, my birth was not an act of aggression. When I was born I didn’t cry, I looked around with curiosity. — leo

My point was other forced acts are considered an aggression, but not this one. Outcomes would not matter, but if we are going to talk about outcomes, there is also collateral damage with this forced action (not just positive experiences). In any other realm of life, if someone forced upon another an action (especially one with mixed outcomes), it would be suspect at best, and deemed wrong at most. The principle of non-aggression was violated.

All I have is the information I have now. As far as we know, there is nothing more than what we know through our experiences and senses. — schopenhauer1

Many people have had spiritual experiences, of existence beyond the material world, according to the information they have our existence doesn't stop with death. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're right, why assume that they are necessarily wrong? If some sort of reincarnation is correct, convincing people to stop procreating won't prevent suffering.

My point was other forced acts are considered an aggression, but not this one. Outcomes would not matter, but if we are going to talk about outcomes, there is also collateral damage with this forced action (not just positive experiences). In any other realm of life, if someone forced upon another an action (especially one with mixed outcomes), it would be suspect at best, and deemed wrong at most. The principle of non-aggression was violated. — schopenhauer1

It's only a forced act if the person didn't want it. If a person doesn't feel that their existence was forced onto them, why would they see their birth as an act forced on them?

There is also collateral damage when antinatalists attempt to convince people that they are bad people for wanting to create a being through love, and help that being experience what makes life find life worth living. Most people are glad to be alive, it's mostly when they aren't that they ponder the point of life or think that they would have preferred not to be born.

If we can't agree on that then I suspect this would turn into a usual debate on antinatalism where neither side will be convinced.

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. — schopenhauer1

Ok can you please clarify where exactly the force in this instance occurs? You will have to be more specific in defining 'forcing something physically' and where the limits around the concept of 'physical force' lie.

Otherwise any action we do could be defined as 'forcing physically'.
Painting a picture can be "forcing something physically" etc.

An intuitive definition of 'force' is to 'act against a will', in fact when you gave the examples of theft and extortion earlier in the thread, both examples implied this definition.

So, whose will do you act against when you have a baby?

Ok can you please clarify where exactly the force in this instance occurs? You will have to be more specific in defining 'forcing something physically' and where the limits around the concept of 'physical force' lie. — Yanni

Sure.. A life was produced where there was none.

Otherwise any action we do could be defined as 'forcing physically'.
Painting a picture can be "forcing something physically" etc. — Yanni

Right, but not to someone else. Unless you forcefully broke into someone's abode and started painting or took their supplies and started painting.

An intuitive definition of 'force' is to 'act against a will', in fact when you gave the examples of theft and extortion earlier in the thread, both examples implied this definition. — Yanni

It's forcing something on somebody. Period. All your pleading all seems like lame ways to get out of this definition

So, whose will do you act against when you have a baby? — Yanni

No one's. At X time the person exists, the force has occurred. I don't care which time X you define it (conception, physical birth, identity, etc.).

It's only a forced act if the person didn't want it. If a person doesn't feel that their existence was forced onto them, why would they see their birth as an act forced on them? — leo

I know a woman who gave birth to a child with a minor problem that can be corrected with modern surgery. Once it would not have been correctable. But when both parents heard from their doctor about the problem observed at the moment of birth, both of their feelings were, “What have we done to this child?” They felt totally responsible for putting this child in this situation.

There are many children in hospital with far worse, ongoing problems, and I can’t help wonder if that is also the thoughts of those parents, that the child did not ask for this, that we imposed it on him/her.

The situation is no different whether the child has a birth defect or not.

If no one was born in the first place, no one would need to collaborate. So perhaps if we were to compromise, we can say once born, it is best practice to collaborate, but it shouldn't be forced. It certainly shouldn't be force recruited by creating a being so that they can collaborate. Rather, it would be more a post-facto reality of having been born and living with other people. — schopenhauer1

Nothing should be forced, we agree on that. But in my view the concept of ‘force’ is a misunderstanding regarding what determines and initiates action in the first place. All action is determined and initiated by awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion - even the creation of a being. Nothing here is forced - the being exists as a result of the awareness, connection and collaboration of interacting elements, but is also limited to some extent by their ignorance, isolation and exclusion. You can’t force life - everything requires collaboration, and a life can certainly - and often does - refuse to be created or refuse to continue living, despite our best efforts.

Don’t get me wrong - I agree with you that procreation should never be thought of as an obligation, a right or even a privilege, and I think the vast majority of focus, energy and effort put into procreation is wasteful, ignorant and misguided, perpetuated by an insufficient theory of evolution which claims that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate, when none of these are necessary AT ALL.

But I think your claim that anyone who procreates is forcing life - acting with aggression against ‘someone’s’ will - shows a misunderstanding of how and why we act. I think it’s more complex than that.

Procreation is too often a cop-out: I’ve given up on trying to achieve anything, so I’ll make another human being to do it for me. I agree that this can be seen as ‘forcing life’ - but in my view it’s more accurately ignorance of one’s capacity to achieve. Still, we don’t always create a being so that they can collaborate - often we create one so that we can collaborate. Parenting, when taken seriously, is an opportunity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration both now and beyond one’s lifetime. It’s a noble pursuit, but we should be aware that its positive effect in the universe as a whole is negligible - and coupled with procreation the overall negative effect is potentially much greater, especially given our current level of resource consumption per capita.

We should be aware that there are many other more effective ways we can connect and collaborate that are less resource-hungry and less dismissive of our own capacity as a human being than creating another being. Plus, we should be aware that there are too many beings already created who desperately need whatever we have to offer any ‘potential being’, to even consider adding to the glut. In that respect, procreation is environmentally, socially and perhaps even morally irresponsible. Contraception, adoption and foster care, for instance, should be considered as much environmental initiatives as social ones.

Those who choose not to bring children into the world and instead devote their own lives (however brief) to effecting real, positive change in how those who already exist interact with the universe (not seeking individual power, independence or influence) are the most valuable human beings, in my opinion. They recognise the ultimate value of a single human life lies not in surviving, dominating or procreating - not in increasing one’s apparent force upon the world - but in increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with every interaction. Even Jesus could tell you that.

But it requires us to stop focusing on avoiding harm or suffering, especially in our own life. In this respect, I think the focus of your argument is off. Antinatalism is NOT a movement to reduce suffering, as much as you try to package it that way. This, I think, is a reason for opposition to your viewpoint. You’re accusing people of force or aggression they didn’t intend, and then expecting them to listen to your reasons why. It simply doesn’t make sense on the surface to associate my decision to bring a child into the world with violating your personal principle of non-aggression.

In my view it isn’t aggression, but ignorance that needs to be tackled here. We lack awareness of the negative effect: not on a single ‘potential being’ in terms of force or harm, but on the environment or unfolding universe as a whole; and we also fundamentally misunderstand why, as a being, I determined to live in the first place, and what harm I accept in order to do so.

Nothing should be forced, we agree on that. But in my view the concept of ‘force’ is a misunderstanding regarding what determines and initiates action in the first place. All action is determined and initiated by awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion - even the creation of a being. Nothing here is forced - the being exists as a result of the awareness, connection and collaboration of interacting elements, but is also limited to some extent by their ignorance, isolation and exclusion. You can’t force life - everything requires collaboration, and a life can certainly - and often does - refuse to be created or refuse to continue living, despite our best efforts. — Possibility

I think this is a bit of a poor excuse. Imagine using this as a defense against any other aggression. Also, I just don't buy into "all action is determined and initiated by awareness..". Rather, the action is determined by individuals with goals, wants, desires, etc. You are taking onus of the individual and turning into some rarefied, unsubstantiated ether where the parents are no longer the ones actually creating the new human.

Don’t get me wrong - I agree with you that procreation should never be thought of as an obligation, a right or even a privilege, and I think the vast majority of focus, energy and effort put into procreation is wasteful, ignorant and misguided, perpetuated by an insufficient theory of evolution which claims that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate, when none of these are necessary AT ALL. — Possibility

Agreed.

Procreation is too often a cop-out: I’ve given up on trying to achieve anything, so I’ll make another human being to do it for me. I agree that this can be seen as ‘forcing life’ - but in my view it’s more accurately ignorance of one’s capacity to achieve. Still, we don’t always create a being so that they can collaborate - often we create one so that we can collaborate. Parenting, when taken seriously, is an opportunity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration both now and beyond one’s lifetime. It’s a noble pursuit, but we should be aware that its positive effect in the universe as a whole is negligible - and coupled with procreation the overall negative effect is potentially much greater, especially given our current level of resource consumption per capita. — Possibility

I agree with the negative effect. But to create someone else because one needs to collaborate is not a justification, even if it is perhaps the case of why people procreate. Why collaboration is more important than causing no harm, or forcing something on someone else is not address except as the idea that it "magically" runs the universe and we can't stop it. However, we can. Just don't procreate. Use your loneliness and do other things with it.

We should be aware that there are many other more effective ways we can connect and collaborate that are less resource-hungry and less dismissive of our own capacity as a human being than creating another being. Plus, we should be aware that there are too many beings already created who desperately need whatever we have to offer any ‘potential being’, to even consider adding to the glut. In that respect, procreation is environmentally, socially and perhaps even morally irresponsible. Contraception, adoption and foster care, for instance, should be considered as much environmental initiatives as social ones. — Possibility

Agreed, but again, these are for different reasons. Even if we didn't have environmental and overpopulation problems, etc. I would advocate antinatalism. It's about not forcing suffering and consistently following the non-aggression principle on others, period.

They recognise the ultimate value of a single human life lies not in surviving, dominating or procreating - not in increasing one’s apparent force upon the world - but in increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with every interaction. Even Jesus could tell you that. — Possibility

This sounds good, but this can be totalitarianism masked as do-goodness. We all have to work, some even in jobs that "make a difference". You can call this collaboration, but so what. It just means we have to be at a certain place, work with other people, produce more stuff, and repeat. Oh, and then we have to buy into the narrative that we are "self-actualizing" by all this "great work of great contribution" we are doing. So the conclusion is, have more people so they can "feel good" about "collaborating". It's just a totalitarianism of the "feel good collaborating sort". Its still an agenda foisted upon the unwitting people who are forced to be a part of it... Even if we lived in the fluffiest of work environments, and we were all environmental justice warriors treating the planet better than we do, that doesn't change the circumstances that I am talking about. Besides the fact that this is not reality, a forced agenda is a forced agenda. Also, no matter what, suffering will take place. Suffering and negative experiences always finds a way.

But it requires us to stop focusing on avoiding harm or suffering, especially in our own life. In this respect, I think the focus of your argument is off. Antinatalism is NOT a movement to reduce suffering, as much as you try to package it that way. This, I think, is a reason for opposition to your viewpoint. You’re accusing people of force or aggression they didn’t intend, and then expecting them to listen to your reasons why. It simply doesn’t make sense on the surface to associate my decision to bring a child into the world with violating your personal principle of non-aggression. — Possibility

It is a force.. You cannot mask the idea that physically bearing another human into existence is a physical "something" that is happening. The person is being brought from state A to state B by another person's decision. How is that not "force"? They may not have realized it, but it is. The whole point is to perhaps show how what at first looks like it doesn't fall under the non-aggression principle in fact does. I understand that most people don't see it that way, but the point is to show the this other viewpoint that they may be overlooking.

In my view it isn’t aggression, but ignorance that needs to be tackled here. We lack awareness of the negative effect: not on a single ‘potential being’ in terms of force or harm, but on the environment or unfolding universe as a whole; and we also fundamentally misunderstand why, as a being, I determined to live in the first place, and what harm I accept in order to do so. — Possibility

You were not determined to live. This is similar to the whole "reincarnation" idea. We "chose" to be here in some spiritual or determined sense prior to birth. That is just a wrong idea regarding cause and effect. We can get into that if you want, but you know what my argument will be by now I'm sure.

I think this is a bit of a poor excuse. Imagine using this as a defense against any other aggression. Also, I just don't buy into "all action is determined and initiated by awareness..". Rather, the action is determined by individuals with goals, wants, desires, etc. You are taking onus of the individual and turning into some rarefied, unsubstantiated ether where the parents are no longer the ones actually creating the new human. — schopenhauer1

Regardless of an individual’s goals, wants, desires, etc, the belief that any action is fully determined by a singular will is false - hubris, even. Just because only human will is aware of itself, does not mean it’s the only will involved in determining action. I’m not referring to any ether, and I’m not suggesting the parents aren’t creating the new human, only that they aren’t acting in isolation. They’re collaborating with cause and effect.

But to create someone else because one needs to collaborate is not a justification, even if it is perhaps the case of why people procreate. Why collaboration is more important than causing no harm, or forcing something on someone else is not address except as the idea that it "magically" runs the universe and we can't stop it. However, we can. Just don't procreate. Use your loneliness and do other things with it. — schopenhauer1

I’m not saying it is a justification, nor am I saying that one needs to collaborate. Collaboration is more fundamental than causing no harm or forcing something on someone else - which is why it’s more important to me - and the fact that causing no harm is more important to you doesn’t change the fundamental nature of collaboration. Of course we can stop instances of collaboration - each instance has to be willed, after all, conscious or not. What we can’t stop is every instance of collaboration, every instance of procreation - that would be thinking we can ‘force’ our will onto others.

Even if we didn't have environmental and overpopulation problems, etc. I would advocate antinatalism. It's about not forcing suffering and consistently following the non-aggression principle on others, period. — schopenhauer1

I would too, but not because of any non-aggression principle. Rather because evolution as a means to survival, domination and procreation is false and advocates ignorance, isolation and exclusion, which in turn increases suffering. This suffering appears ‘forced’ because it is surrounded by ignorance, isolation and exclusion on BOTH sides. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration is the ONLY effective way to not ‘force’ suffering without ‘forcing’ suffering in other ways. Your non-aggression principle is followed either by ‘force’ OR by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, period.

This sounds good, but this can be totalitarianism masked as do-goodness. We all have to work, some even in jobs that "make a difference". You can call this collaboration, but so what. It just means we have to be at a certain place, work with other people, produce more stuff, and repeat. Oh, and then we have to buy into the narrative that we are "self-actualizing" by all this "great work of great contribution" we are doing. So the conclusion is, have more people so they can "feel good" about "collaborating". It's just a totalitarianism of the "feel good collaborating sort". Its still an agenda foisted upon the unwitting people who are forced to be a part of it... Even if we lived in the fluffiest of work environments, and we were all environmental justice warriors treating the planet better than we do, that doesn't change the circumstances that I am talking about. Besides the fact that this is not reality, a forced agenda is a forced agenda. Also, no matter what, suffering will take place. Suffering and negative experiences always finds a way. — schopenhauer1

This is where I think you and I differ the most, because the way I see it, we don’t have to do anything at all. You seem to think that the world is ‘run’ by forces beyond your control, that there are things you are compelled to do simply because you exist, and that’s what seems to upset you. But I’m not talking about a top-down approach, about an authority foisting an agenda upon anyone. To force everyone to collaborate defeats the purpose, don’t you think? Communism taught us that.

I’m talking about how I choose to interact with the world. I know that I don’t have to survive, that I don’t have to work, or to become independent or influential, or to contribute to society, or to pass on my genetic code, or even to eat, sleep, breathe, etc. I know that I don’t have to be aware, to connect or to collaborate any more than I have to ignore, isolate or exclude. I also know that whenever I suffer, it’s because of ignorance, isolation or exclusion on my part as much as whatever or whoever appears to be causing that suffering.

Regardless of an individual’s goals, wants, desires, etc, the belief that any action is fully determined by a singular will is false - hubris, even. Just because only human will is aware of itself, does not mean it’s the only will involved in determining action. I’m not referring to any ether, and I’m not suggesting the parents aren’t creating the new human, only that they aren’t acting in isolation. They’re collaborating with cause and effect. — Possibility

You'd have to really explain that one. Sure, society feeds into individuals that feeds into society. At the end of the day, the one to pull the trigger is the proximal cause, which is the direct action of the two individuals that create the humans (or some other method used).

What we can’t stop is every instance of collaboration, every instance of procreation - that would be thinking we can ‘force’ our will onto others. — Possibility

Correct, we cannot nor should not force our wills, but we can convince with dialogue that is not stepping in the territory of force or aggression.

Your non-aggression principle is followed either by ‘force’ OR by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, period. — Possibility

I'm not sure we agree or not, but I'll take it we agree.. don't procreate but don't force that idea only promote dialogue where acceptable. I take that to be what you are saying.