Existence for the already-born is a tricky business. We are used creatures. Our self-reflective capacities are used by our own human instincts to shit, eat, get bored, find a more comfortable setting, and seek pleasure. We are used by social institutions because social institutions are designed to find a way to take those instincts and self-reflective capacities and manipulate them to produce and consume for the benefit of keeping society going (i.e. labor, consumption, trade, maintenance of personal and industrial commodities and goods, education, family, entertainment purveyors, etc.). We are often used by family and relatives. We are often used by our employers in various ways to get the most work- causing stress. We are de facto forced into these social institutions, knowing that as social creatures, such that being a hermit in the woods, a homeless person in the streets, or a monk in a commune are most likely not viable (are sub-optimal) choices, so the de facto social milieu of the socio-economic normative reality is set. We are used in all sorts of ways. We are complicit, as in turn, we tend to use others and these institutions as well for our needs and wants. Then, on top of this using, there is collateral damage. There are physical and mental illnesses, disasters, accidents, miscalculations, bad decision-making, and all sorts of things that make even the bad "regular" outcome of being used and manipulated into an even worse endeavor. — schopenhauer1

This is victim mentality, or at least a form of ‘learned helplessness’. You’re simply unaware of your capacity for action, and unwilling to explore it when it presents itself. We are not hapless victims of ‘instinct’, circumstance or ‘social institutions’. These are not ‘forces’ beyond our control. We are ‘complicit’ because these are social concepts that we have formed in our own minds, in the same way that people conceptualised ‘gods’ from interactions with their environment when they failed to detect control. Here’s an article about ‘learned helplessness’ theory you might find interesting.

You can claim that this "using" is collaboration or "mutually beneficial relationships" but at the end of the day, they are de facto forced realities that we accept as necessary. Some (apparently you) go as far as giving some quasi-spiritual significance to these supposed "mutually beneficial relationships". I think this is simply turning a blind eye to what is really going on. The first (and most important) political decision was made for you, that was being born in the first place. Someone else thought you should go through life and be a part of this using process (not their perspective to use someone, but their unintended and unreflective action nonetheless). They had some reason (some X agenda) that this should be so if they weren't just outright negligent (accidental birth). Their decision majorly affecting another person, who must deal with it now. — schopenhauer1

This is not what I have claimed - this is what YOU conclude from my perspective. I never claimed what you describe as ‘using’ to be conscious collaboration, or that ‘mutually beneficial relationships’ were the norm - only that they were possible to achieve in reality. The fact that YOU cannot see how they are possible does not preclude them from being achievable. And all of this comes back to the self-contradictory, impractical negative ethics that says contributing to ‘harm’ is not an option. It is ONLY this flawed ethical perspective that positions us as ‘used creatures’. This can be changed, so why do you cling to it? What are you afraid of?

Now that we are alive, "forced" into dealing with the situation thereof, what do we do? One can commit suicide. That is usually a sub-optimal choice for most. We can keep going through the motions- that is an inevitable choice (that is to say, survival through work, consumption, and trade through the normative socio-economic channels that the current situation provides). One could drink the Kool-Aid and accept the givens and then even "praise them" like so many self-help books try to promote. In this "acceptance" view (which I deem to be promoted most by social institutions), one accepts the reality of what the situation is more-or-less (minor political tweaks not withstanding on whatever minor political spectrum you are on), and then move forward as a happy warrior. Thus making friends, climbing the mountain of one's own self-actualization, and abiding the day in the normative socio-economic setting is the about as good as it gets. I say rebellion is the best stance though. Always realize that one was placed here originally. Always remember that one is being used and is using. Now, I agree that community is part of humanity, and thus communally, I think it can be cathartic to rebel together. — schopenhauer1

I recognise that we cannot choose what happens to us, but we can choose how we respond. That we DO respond is important - whether we refer to it as ‘rebellion’ or as ‘collaboration’ depends on our awareness of how everything interacts and relates. To do anything effectively, we should begin by maximising our awareness of the current situation and accept it as real - regardless of whether we want it that way. From there, we can be in the best position to effect real and lasting change, because every action is then perceived as an INTERaction, rather than a battle against the ‘forces’ of the universe or society. There is a world of difference between accepting a situation as how it IS and how it should STAY. For me, Rosa Parks’ historical stance on the bus is a perfect example of awareness, connection and collaboration.

So antinatalism is not JUST about preventing harm (negative ethics), but can be a "positive" ethics in rallying against our being used. No, we cannot prevent "existence" itself, but we can recognize what is going on as a community and perhaps with this "rebellious stance" and understanding, we can be kinder and more understanding of each other and our situations. Schopenhauer thought the best stance was recognizing each other as "fellow-sufferers". We are in the same boat- and it isn't a collaboration panacea of bliss. It is rather being used by all sorts of factors and enduring and dealing with life. We can communally understand this and rebel. We can recognize what is going on and prevent others from dealing with as well. — schopenhauer1

What you’re describing here is victim mentality, not a ‘rebellious stance’. You’re not rebelling, you’re complaining - protesting, even. But protesting what? The necessity of existence, or the way we have constructed this existence?

I agree with Schopenhauer’s idea of recognising each other as ‘fellow-sufferers’, but I also think this is a first step in a much more productive interaction with the ‘boat’ as it were than simply preventing others from being born on that boat. Because there is more to ‘what is going on’ than the recognition that ‘we are in the same boat’. We have constructed this boat, and we are the captain and crew. The more we understand what we’ve built and how it sails, the more it can become a ‘collaboration panacea’.

So your ‘positive ethics’ has no principles for correct action in the real world. You think you’re doing something, but you’re achieving nothing in reality - everything you think you’re doing is happening only in your mind.

This is victim mentality, or at least a form of ‘learned helplessness’. You’re simply unaware of your capacity for action, and unwilling to explore it when it presents itself. — Possibility

Thus says the person who forces the other person into the game...Blithely ignorant.

These are not ‘forces’ beyond our control. We are ‘complicit’ because these are social concepts that we have formed in our own minds, in the same way that people conceptualised ‘gods’ from interactions with their environment when they failed to detect control. Here’s an article about ‘learned helplessness’ theory you might find interesting. — Possibility

These are forces out of our control. To believe otherwise is overdetermining how much capacity we have not only in the initial conditions of our life and circumstances, but the required effort to change even one thing.

And all of this comes back to the self-contradictory, impractical negative ethics that says contributing to ‘harm’ is not an option. It is ONLY this flawed ethical perspective that positions us as ‘used creatures’. This can be changed, so why do you cling to it? What are you afraid of? — Possibility

Nothing to do with fear. It has to do with circumstances. This is all Pollyanna braggadocio about our capacities to change things. Notice, it is always when we aren't "really" going through shit, or after the shit, or when forecasting the shit that we see life as okie dokie, easily malleable, or other such thing. Or similarly, it is YOU who requires ALL this EFFORT that YOU are not providing to change YOUR world. How dare you (says the person who created the inescapable game for the other person).

I recognise that we cannot choose what happens to us, but we can choose how we respond. That we DO respond is important - whether we refer to it as ‘rebellion’ or as ‘collaboration’ depends on our awareness of how everything interacts and relates. To do anything effectively, we should begin by maximising our awareness of the current situation and accept it as real - regardless of whether we want it that way. From there, we can be in the best position to effect real and lasting change, because every action is then perceived as an INTERaction, rather than a battle against the ‘forces’ of the universe or society. There is a world of difference between accepting a situation as how it IS and how it should STAY. For me, Rosa Parks’ historical stance on the bus is a perfect example of awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

I already anticipated this response when saying thus, and you just reiterated the error.

In this "acceptance" view (which I deem to be promoted most by social institutions), one accepts the reality of what the situation is more-or-less (minor political tweaks not withstanding on whatever minor political spectrum you are on), and then move forward as a happy warrior. Thus making friends, climbing the mountain of one's own self-actualization, and abiding the day in the normative socio-economic setting is the about as good as it gets.

Yes, yes, acceptance acceptance..Rosa Parks was rebelling against institutional racism. Antinatalism isn't going to be so amenable a rebellion. It is rebellion against being used by life, social institutions, our own instincts, etc. That is way too abstract for a polite gesture of civil disobedience which had a ready-made audience who was on board to use that act to change society. Thus, this is a false equivalency and nowhere near the same matter.

The more we understand what we’ve built and how it sails, the more it can become a ‘collaboration panacea’. — Possibility

Pollyanna self-help stuff.

So your ‘positive ethics’ has no principles for correct action in the real world. You think you’re doing something, but you’re achieving nothing in reality - everything you think you’re doing is happening only in your mind. — Possibility

Wrong assumption- that something "has" to be achieved. It is a circular argument. We must achieve collaboration, to collaborate, to collaborate. You can put anything there though.. civilization to civilization, technology to technology, learn to learn... It's all self-justifying.

Thus says the person who forces the other person into the game...Blithely ignorant. — schopenhauer1

Ignorant of what? Of how YOU think the world is? Ignorance is a blatant refusal to recognise that the ‘harm’ you perceive is prediction error: the world is NOT going to respond the way you expect it to - not because it’s trying to enforce anything on YOU, but because YOU don’t get to decide how it should go. There is no ‘game’ except the one you’ve created for yourself. I know that something exists, and something is aware of existence. How I fit into that is what we’re all trying to figure out by interacting with the world and learning from our mistakes. Except you’ve decided that it’s easier to cling ignorantly to a conceptual world in which you are the tragic central character of a cautionary tale: ‘Look what you made me do’. What you’re ignoring is that YOU are not the central character of reality.

the world is NOT going to respond the way you expect it to - not because it’s trying to enforce anything on YOU, but because YOU don’t get to decide how it should go. — Possibility

So thus we get to place people in a game in non-optimal conditions for the individual. That is just proving my point about placing people in a game because YOU think that person should play it (i.e. play the collaboration game or whatever you want to call it).

. I know that something exists, and something is aware of existence. How I fit into that is what we’re all trying to figure out by interacting with the world and learning from our mistakes. — Possibility

But intentionally placing people into the game to "figure it out" (real easy words for people who have harder circumstances, but that's a secondary point), and "interacting with the world" and "learning from our mistakes". Why should anyone be put in this game to go through it? Self-justifying circular answers ensue.

What you’re ignoring is that YOU are not the central character of reality. — Possibility

I don't pretend to be reality, just myself and it is the individual who is affected, whatever the hell reality is.

So thus we get to place people in a game in non-optimal conditions for the individual. — schopenhauer1

Describe to me what ‘optimal conditions’ would be for an ‘individual’ to exist.

Describe to me what ‘optimal conditions’ would be for an ‘individual’ to exist. — Possibility

There are none currently. As you so elucidated.

An underlying impetus is not goal-directed, but neither is it random. Like a Mandelbrot set (only six-dimensional), it has a simple pattern that leads to an ever-increasing complexity without a definite result. The diversity comes from the point at which each ‘section’ of the pattern resists the impetus. — Possibility

I... Cannot see any similarities between life and a mandelbrot set

The method of antinatalism only reduces possible suffering to zero for a non-existent possibility. You can’t do anything with that. It’s a strawman. — Possibility

????? Is a world without people a world without suffering? I'd say yes. So is a world where antinatalism is applied a world without suffering? I'd say yes. So if your goal is to reduce suffering to 0, one way to do so is antinatalism

While you exist, you cannot avoid contributing to what others would refer to as ‘harm — Possibility

Yes. But I take into account my own harm as well. And I do not harm anyone else unless it relieves me of massive harm. You're not taking ME into the equation when you make that statement

My principle is: "harm as little as possible". Don't harm was a simplification

You cannot be certain that someone will not be harmed by your action — Possibility

So as I said act within your best knowledge

Your ethical perspective is dependent upon being the ONLY ethical perspective. — Possibility

Where did this come from?

(which defeats the purpose of ethics). — Possibility

Not true. Ethics is just about how to act as how not to act

On what grounds? If an action takes place before the person exists, then it is not an action against that person, but against something else. — Possibility

On the grounds that we can agree that the alternative is ridiculous. So if I set a bear trap in a park 10 years ago, it's a crime if a 50 year old steps on it but not a crime if a 9 year old steps on it? Another example: is there nothing wrong with signing a contract selling your child to slavery as long as you signed it before you had the kid?

Also what does this objections have to do with anything. I said that one should try to harm others as little as possible, (keeping himself in the equation). No where did I make a mention of acts done "on" people or things or whatever. I'm only concerned with the final result not whether or not an action was done on someone or something else.

On what grounds do you think that a harmful action done before the person to be harmed is born is permissable. What does time have to do with it.

As an example, ‘reduce ignorance, isolation and exclusion’ is a negative ethics, whose corresponding positive ethics - ‘increase awareness, connection and collaboration’ - works in harmony with it to enable actions that violate neither. — Possibility

How about: increase awareness by 50 but increase ignorance by 10 (I'm just using arbitrary numbers because I don't know what these mean). Is that allowed? By "increase awareness" it is allowed, by "reduce ignorance" it's not allowed. Contradiction see? So which should take priority. Life rarely has situations where an action produces ONLY good or ONLY bad.

But intentionally placing people into the game to "figure it out" (real easy words for people who have harder circumstances, but that's a secondary point), and "interacting with the world" and "learning from our mistakes". Why should anyone be put in this game to go through it? Self-justifying circular answers ensue. — schopenhauer1

There is no game: no activity that one engages in for fun or amusement; no form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules; no episode or period of play ending in a final result; no secret and clever plan or trick.

You keep trying to argue that existence is some kind of game we didn’t choose to play, but a ‘game’ is something we’ve made up. It isn’t real. No one came up with ‘existence’ as a game, and then forced other ‘individuals’ to play it. There is simply existence and whatever sense we make of it. If you’ve decided to make sense of it in terms of a ‘game’, then surely someone must have ‘created’ that game and decided on the rules. If you believe that’s not the case, then the analogy of a ‘game’ doesn’t fit, and there must be a more accurate way to make sense of existence. Or if you believe that it’s our social reality that came up with the game and the rules, then you would understand (if you made any attempt to understand instead of just protesting) that this ‘social reality’ is a subjective consensus of value structures and concepts to which we subscribe freely in our minds rather than any ‘force beyond our control’, and all of it is subject to critical examination and change.

You don’t have to try and figure it out, you don’t have to interact with the world, and you certainly don’t have to learn from your mistakes. I can’t make you do anything, and I can’t make you see the world the way I do. I’m only suggesting that you should give these a go, not because I think they’re ‘right’ or ‘good’, but because I believe it’s important for me to try and ease suffering where I can, and that I do it by at least attempting to increase awareness, connection and collaboration in each of my interactions with the world. That’s how I make sense of existence.

????? Is a world without people a world without suffering? I'd say yes. So is a world where antinatalism is applied a world without suffering? I'd say yes. So if your goal is to reduce suffering to 0, one way to do so is antinatalism — khaled

What do you understand ‘suffering’ to be?

How about: increase awareness by 50 but increase ignorance by 10 (I'm just using arbitrary numbers because I don't know what these mean). Is that allowed? By "increase awareness" it is allowed, by "reduce ignorance" it's not allowed. Contradiction see? So which should take priority. — khaled

It’s not possible to increase both awareness and ignorance with the same action. Awareness is acquiring information about the world; ignorance is rejecting available information.

There are none currently. As you so elucidated. — schopenhauer1

Why do you say ‘currently’?

Not true. Ethics is just about how to act as how not to act — khaled

Ethics is only about how not to act in relation to the conducting of an activity. So negative ethics cannot stand alone.

What do you understand ‘suffering’ to be? — Possibility

An experience someone is trying to avoid

It’s not possible to increase both awareness and ignorance with the same action. Awareness is acquiring information about the world; ignorance is rejecting available information. — Possibility

Again, I don't know what these mean so I can't really say anything. It is however usual for an action to do both good and bad. Example: having children. That causes someone to experience a lot of suffering. Also causes them to experience a lot of pleasure. "You should not cause suffering" and "You should create pleasure" will judge the act differently

How does this

So negative ethics cannot stand alone. — Possibility

Follow from this

Ethics is only about how not to act in relation to the conducting of an activity — Possibility

They seem like unrelated statements which I don't even understand

There is no game: no activity that one engages in for fun or amusement; no form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules; no episode or period of play ending in a final result; no secret and clever plan or trick. — Possibility

You said that but then you said this:

You don’t have to try and figure it out, you don’t have to interact with the world, and you certainly don’t have to learn from your mistakes. — Possibility

There is the game then. Learning from mistakes is part of it. In other threads I've called it "growth-through-adversity" model. Parents think that life is some sort of game of "growing-through-adversity". Thus providing life to another person ensures they play the game of "growth-through-adversity". Or they hope they grow through their adversity and not flounder in adversity. Of course, why putting someone in this "reality" of growth-through-adversity in the first place is not explained.

Why do you say ‘currently’? — Possibility

You asked if there are any optimal conditions. I said there were none currently. In pure theory, there could be a universe that has complete optimal conditions that is tailored for every individual's absolute paradise (and everything can be turned off to suit what one wants at any given time), but that is not this reality as you have noted. We only have this reality. And if you say, we have to "fit" this reality, then that is the game that you deny that it is. No, it's not made by humans, but the way you describe reality (interacting and collaboration.. do it or pay the consequences or whatever your negative consequence is of not following your model), it is indeed something one must try to get a "handle of". There is some technique, some WAY, some thing that has to be done and if one doesn't do it, one suffers from it.. This to me is game-like. One plays by the rules or one doesn't get to benefit from playing the game or winning it. Yes, I know you are going to object to "winning" or "rules" but that is essentially what you are laying out. Even if you deny this, and then repeat your "collaboration" chorus, it doesn't negate what it is amounting to. You can say it differently, but your model is as much a game as the normative models that are around which are about the same.. deal with reality.. here is how.. growth-through-adversity in some fashion or other be it collaboration or anything else.

How does this

So negative ethics cannot stand alone.
— Possibility

Follow from this
Ethics is only about how not to act in relation to the conducting of an activity
— Possibility

They seem like unrelated statements which I don't even understand — khaled

It is in the process of consciously determining an action that a negative ethics is applied. But in order to consciously initiate an action, a positive ethics is required. In order to act, you must have some idea of what is a ‘good’ act (positive ethics), not just what is not a ‘good’ act (negative ethics). It appears to me that your positive ethics is to ‘do what benefits the individual’, which is often in direct conflict with ‘harm as little as possible’, so of course you’re still faced with a dilemma in determining every action (so long as you’re aware of the impact your action may have) - one that your particular brand of ethics cannot help you with (hence the OP question). Your intuition tells you that your negative ethics are more important than your positive ethics, as they stand - and I would agree with you here, in theory. But that doesn’t solve your problem - it only makes the antinatalist argument seem valid, and only because there is NO ACTION INITIATED. All it does is allow you to accuse those who do act, regardless of their reasons, of violating your negative ethics.

My point, however, is that the conflict between your positive and negative ethics is the main problem. If you always prioritise your negative ethics, then your only actions will be those in which your subjective evaluation of benefit to you outweighs your subjective evaluation of the extent of harm that those actions may cause others. But how do you evaluate ignoring information about possible or potential harm that could tip the scales on an action which would otherwise be deemed more beneficial to the individual than it is harmful to others? It does no harm to ignore this information, does it? You’re not initiating any action, just determining not to interact in a way that might inform you of something which has a negative benefit to you as an individual...

Which brings us back to the argument regarding procreation: you’re asking those who subscribe to your form of ethics to also rely on your subjective evaluation of possible future harm to someone who doesn’t exist, weighed against your evaluation of the action’s benefit to the parent as an individual. By your own ethics, however, YOU don’t get to decide that for them. The benefit/harm to the individual can ONLY be evaluated by the individual in question. So, by your ethics, the parent is well within their rights to evaluate procreation in relation to their own perspective of the harm/benefit scale. And there is nothing in your ethics that says they shouldn’t ignore information that it’s in their best interests to ignore.

You asked if there are any optimal conditions. I said there were none currently. In pure theory, there could be a universe that has complete optimal conditions that is tailored for every individual's absolute paradise (and everything can be turned off to suit what one wants at any given time), but that is not this reality as you have noted. We only have this reality. And if you say, we have to "fit" this reality, then that is the game that you deny that it is. No, it's not made by humans, but the way you describe reality (interacting and collaboration.. do it or pay the consequences or whatever your negative consequence is of not following your model), it is indeed something one must try to get a "handle of". There is some technique, some WAY, some thing that has to be done and if one doesn't do it, one suffers from it.. This to me is game-like. One plays by the rules or one doesn't get to benefit from playing the game or winning it. Yes, I know you are going to object to "winning" or "rules" but that is essentially what you are laying out. Even if you deny this, and then repeat your "collaboration" chorus, it doesn't negate what it is amounting to. You can say it differently, but your model is as much a game as the normative models that are around which are about the same.. deal with reality.. here is how.. growth-through-adversity in some fashion or other be it collaboration or anything else. — schopenhauer1

The difference is that you seem to think we should have a different reality. Bear with me while I attempt to understand what you’re proposing here.

In your alternative reality, it seems that either only one individual exists as the universe, or each individual is completely unaware of others - like a multiverse of sorts. Once aware of anything other than itself, your own existence would necessarily be in relation to whatever else exists. For this to be an ‘absolute paradise’ (in which everything can be turned off to suit what one wants at any given time), an individual must have a complete working knowledge or ‘control’ of everything that exists. And the only way to achieve that is to imagine your own universe from scratch.

So this universe with optimal conditions could possibly exist, but only within the mind of an individual, and only in absence (or ignorance) of any other form of existence. You’re effectively yearning for oblivion - this is your ‘absolute paradise’.

But let’s say an individual wishes to manifest this ‘absolute paradise’ they have imagined in which to exist. The individual would need to manifest another existence (its absolute paradise) with which to interact. In order to know what to manifest, it must have some idea of what could possibly exist. But if nothing exists except itself, then it cannot know of any other possibility, and so can only manifest another instance of itself, with the potential it perceives within itself.

But how does this individual even know anything about itself, given that one approaches an understanding of oneself only through interaction with others? What you’re proposing is the universe of an omniscient, omnipotent creator: you. But you are a product of existence in this reality.

I get that you’d like reality to reflect your own value system - we all would, because that would mean we no longer have to experience prediction error, which we tend to evaluate as ‘bad’ experience. But you’re criticising a reality that you don’t know enough about to even begin to propose an effective alternative. It’s like what @Banno refers to here regarding critical thinking without context - like the patient trying to tell a neurosurgeon where he went wrong. It’s ignorance and hubris to think you know better than a reality you don’t even understand. It just smacks of a two year old tantrum, to me.

As for ‘the game’, you can exist without ever managing to get a ‘handle of’ reality. Most of existence operates in this way. But the rules that we’ve made up insist that ‘suffering is bad’, and so we’re imposing our own restrictions on how we exist. That’s your choice - you can’t blame reality for your own evaluation of it. There is no objective ‘good’ or ‘bad’, no ‘some thing that has to be done’ - there is simply existence and whatever sense we make of it. Your interpretations of how I describe reality will always look like a ‘game’ to you, it seems. But for me, there are no rules except those we make for ourselves or attempt to impose on others.

I’ve suggested a ‘way’ to minimise our contribution to ‘suffering’ as it exists in the world, but you reject it on the grounds that it attributes no priority to the individual, even though this particular subjective value conflicts with reality as it exists in the world, increasing ‘suffering’. You seem to think there ‘should’ be a way to prioritise both the individual and their freedom from ‘suffering’, but this world only exists in the mind of the ‘individual’, and can only be manifest as a result of that individual choosing to exist in relation to others.

The difference is that you seem to think we should have a different reality. Bear with me while I attempt to understand what you’re proposing here. — Possibility

First off, you're not freakn Yoda or Buddha, or some wise sage, so please stop pretending to be on a perch of wisdom about collaboration vs. my ignorance of reality and focus on the individual. So now that we got that out of the way...

So this universe with optimal conditions could possibly exist, but only within the mind of an individual, and only in absence (or ignorance) of any other form of existence. You’re effectively yearning for oblivion - this is your ‘absolute paradise’.

But let’s say an individual wishes to manifest this ‘absolute paradise’ they have imagined in which to exist. The individual would need to manifest another existence (its absolute paradise) with which to interact. In order to know what to manifest, it must have some idea of what could possibly exist. But if nothing exists except itself, then it cannot know of any other possibility, and so can only manifest another instance of itself, with the potential it perceives within itself. — Possibility

Well of course. AGAIN, you asked me, "Are there any optimal conditions". My answer is effectively, no there is not. I then off-handedly said I guess in theory there can be a universe of paradise. Then you took that off-handed comment to make a huge straw man and/or red herring to try to prove the falsehood of its ever going to be a reality. HENCE, I said "PURELY THEORETICAL". I would never believe it could even be a reality. It would only be a fantasy one can think of.. Like a square circle, etc. I can think of it, but the actual reality of it is itself a contradiction. So, let's not even dwell on it because it's a straw man you set up.

I get that you’d like reality to reflect your own value system - we all would, because that would mean we no longer have to experience prediction error, which we tend to evaluate as ‘bad’ experience. But you’re criticising a reality that you don’t know enough about to even begin to propose an effective alternative. It’s like what Banno refers to here regarding critical thinking without context - like the patient trying to tell a neurosurgeon where he went wrong. It’s ignorance and hubris to think you know better than a reality you don’t even understand. It just smacks of a two year old tantrum, to me. — Possibility

You're putting ideas out there that I didn't say. All I am saying is that do not harm someone by procreating. I don't buy into this beyond good and evil BS, that life "must" be had by yet MORE people so that those individuals can experience "growth-through-adversity". Your collaboration mumbo jumbo is just another version of "growth-through-adversity" schemes to say justify why life should be lived out by yet more people. Next.

There is no objective ‘good’ or ‘bad’, no ‘some thing that has to be done’ - there is simply existence and whatever sense we make of it. Your interpretations of how I describe reality will always look like a ‘game’ to you, it seems. But for me, there are no rules except those we make for ourselves or attempt to impose on others. — Possibility

I call bullshit. There are certainly rules that are imposed, forced or de facto (as I've stated). Humans are not in a vacuum. The problem with these self-help philosophies is they always try to sound wiser than what they are.. If you invert the problem so that it is with YOU the individual who has the problem, then it cannot be reality that is off, but YOUR interaction/view/interpretation that is. This thus allows the con game to keep going.. You see, the best people understand how to quietly accept "reality" and they change it by some life-affirming choice.. I don't know joining a Cult of Collaboration, hobby, friends, whatever not-so-novel idea you want to throw out there where the person "realizes" that they can "change" their view and become more at peace with reality.. Yeah, I've heard all this. There is only one way to prevent suffering for another person, that is not putting more people into the world..

What you are allowing (and you will keep denying this, I know), is for people to justify why it is ok to be born in the first place.. because you see in this philosophy of yours and similar ones, it is YOU (the individual who was born), that has a problem and you BETTER learn to adjust or be a miserable pessimist.. You see all problems stem from your ATTITUDE and you if you just CHANGE that so that you can accept the reality.. etc. etc. If someone says that it is the person who was born that was wronged by being brought into existence, that somehow can never be stated. No, that is fine. It is the person who was procreated who is wrong if they don't ACCEPT life's premises, according to these "it's YOUR attitude" philosophies.

Let's take a thought experiment.. let us say antinatalism caught on and a majority of the world thought like an antinatalist. What do you think that would look like?

I don't buy into this beyond good and evil BS, that life "must" be had by yet MORE people so that those individuals can experience "growth-through-adversity". Your collaboration mumbo jumbo is just another version of "growth-through-adversity" schemes to say justify why life should be lived out by yet more people. Next. — schopenhauer1

Not what I’m saying at all. You have in your head a concept that you think is close to what I’m arguing here, and you’re running with that instead of reading what I’ve actually written. I have never said ‘growth-through-adversity’, and I have never said that life should or ‘must’ be lived by more people - because I don’t believe that it should. Talk about strawman. Take a moment to try and honestly understand what I’ve written before rejecting it based on your own assumptions of what I must be saying simply because I disagree with you on something.

Let's take a thought experiment.. let us say antinatalism caught on and a majority of the world thought like an antinatalist. What do you think that would look like? — schopenhauer1

If the majority of human beings decided not to procreate in an attempt to reduce ‘individual’ instances of suffering, then eventually you would achieve what amounts to a quantitative success. Yay, well done. But ‘suffering’ is not an event - it’s an evaluation in relation to all other experiences. So what would happen is that the negative value of each remaining instance of ‘suffering’ would gradually become more pronounced. In effect you would not achieve a reduction as such, but rather a concentration of that same negative value of ‘suffering’ across an awareness of much fewer instances.

So what you have would be fewer individuals, who would then evaluate any event prior to this more concentrated existence as less relevant than an event that happens to this existence. Their individual lives and experiences become infinitely more precious, because the relevance of their own existence is so much more finite. History becomes irrelevant. The small incidences of ‘harm’ they would have brushed off before are now considered much more serious. They’re more afraid: of those who would ‘harm’ them, of bringing ‘harm’ to others, of an unwanted end to their precious existence, of losing loved ones, etc - everything has so much more value, both positive and negative.

And with the loss of ever more individuals, each individual ‘suffering’ increases in severity for those who remain. How long do you think this antinatalism would last, once an individual recognises there are two options that would most certainly ease this intensity for themselves? Which option do you think would be more attractive?

So, while I admire the heartfelt motivation, as long as the priority is the individual you will never reduce the qualitative impact of ‘suffering’ in the world - not with antinatalism. And I maintain that it is the ethical perspective that lets you down, not the prescription of ‘don’t procreate’, which I would otherwise support.

But in order to consciously initiate an action, a positive ethics is required. — Possibility

I don't think this is correct. Ethics is about what you "should" or "shouldn't" do on some moral level but it doesn't actually have binding power. I don't need to think X is the right thing to do to do X. I can still do X even if I think it is wrong. So no you do not need positive ethics to consciously initiate an action. Do you appeal to a moral principle every time you go to have breakfast?

It appears to me that your positive ethics is to ‘do what benefits the individual’ — Possibility

No, and this is addressed above. I don't have a positive ethics. I don't think people "should" do anything. That doesn't mean I will do nothing.

If you always prioritise your negative ethics, then your only actions will be — Possibility

No, again, just because I actually do something doesn't mean there was a moral reason behind it.

you’re asking those who subscribe to your form of ethics to also rely on your subjective evaluation of possible future harm to someone who doesn’t exist, weighed against your evaluation of the action’s benefit to the parent as an individual. — Possibility

Correct.

By your own ethics, however, YOU don’t get to decide that for them — Possibility

Correct.

The benefit/harm to the individual can ONLY be evaluated by the individual in question. So, by your ethics, the parent is well within their rights to evaluate procreation in relation to their own perspective of the harm/benefit scale — Possibility

Correct. And anyone in their right minds would clearly see that there is no way they benefit more from having a child than their child suffers their entire lifetime. "Suffering due to not having a child" is a form of suffering. What they would be proposing is that that form alone outweights ALL forms of suffering their child will experience. There is just no way that's true.

As I said, I am not against procreation just cuz. I am against it because it causes more suffering than it alleviates. If there is a scenario where it would alleviate significantly more suffering than it causes, sure have kids. But I think such scenarios are negligable

And there is nothing in your ethics that says they shouldn’t ignore information that it’s in their best interests to ignore. — Possibility

I don't get where this ignoring information thing came from. I'm not ignoring any information as far as I can see

I don't think this is correct. Ethics is about what you "should" or "shouldn't" do on some moral level but it doesn't actually have binding power. I don't need to think X is the right thing to do to do X. I can still do X even if I think it is wrong. So no you do not need positive ethics to consciously initiate an action. Do you appeal to a moral principle every time you go to have breakfast? — khaled

I agree that ethics doesn’t have any binding power. I personally think people ‘should’ do certain things, and they ‘shouldn’t’ do other things - but I’m under no illusions that my demanding either will have any effect - these are simply the principles I find most effective across the board, and it’s against my own principles to keep this information to myself, whether anyone else agrees with them or not.

I also agree that someone doesn’t need to think X (procreation) is the right thing to do to do X (procreate) - and they can still procreate even if they think it is wrong, and even if YOU think it is wrong. So what are we arguing about?

There are many things that we do without consciously initiating an action, but we initiate an action that we are then conscious of, all the same. If someone asked you ‘why did you have breakfast?’ You might answer, ‘because I was hungry’ - to which they might then ask, ‘well, why did you have breakfast because you were hungry?’ The reasoning you give for initiating your action X, whether or not you employed that reasoning at the time, will eventually come back to a certain moral principle which reassures you that X was the right thing to do given the circumstances, even if you think it was wrong on some other level. Perhaps if we were more conscious of determining and initiating actions according to our moral principles, we might behave more responsibly - or at least be more aware of where our moral principles contradict each other and where we discard them in favour of ‘survival instinct’, for instance (which is another way of saying ‘do what benefits the individual’). Ignorance of what determines and initiates our actions doesn’t mean those actions aren’t guided by any ethics at all. Quite the opposite - these moral principles are those we deem ‘necessary’: not just a ‘should’ but a ‘must’. Recognising that there are options even to our ‘instincts’ would enable us to critically examine our ethical perspective at a deeper level than just our behaviour as human beings.

And anyone in their right minds would clearly see that there is no way they benefit more from having a child than their child suffers their entire lifetime. "Suffering due to not having a child" is a form of suffering. What they would be proposing is that that form alone outweights ALL forms of suffering their child will experience. There is just no way that's true. — khaled

‘Anyone in their right minds’ is a subjective value structure. What you mean is ‘anyone in YOUR mind’. This is your perspective of their life and the life of their child, not theirs. Someone else’s evaluation of their own individual yearning to be a parent and the possible life of their own child is always going to be drastically different to your perspective. Suffering isn’t about quantity of instances, but about qualitative evaluation. As someone who places no value in the existence of either individual (only in the quantity of suffering they represent), your logical evaluation of their possible instances of ‘suffering’ means exactly squat to them. There is no way you can know what is true for either of them.

You can’t effectively alter a decision to procreate from the moral perspective of possible suffering to a possible child - anyone weighing this decision is way past possibilities - already considering the overwhelming potential a child can bring to the world, as well as their own potential as a parent, and is ready to collaborate with both. You can, however, approach the decision from the moral perspective of potential harm another child will bring to the environment and those already suffering in terms of diversion, consumption, energy and resource depletion, and point out the overwhelming potential those parents have to offer existing children who are actually suffering in the world. There is then possible, potential and existing suffering that can be alleviated here by not procreating, and instead finding alternative ways to collaborate.

I don't get where this ignoring information thing came from. I'm not ignoring any information as far as I can see — khaled

Not you - I was referring to those you’re trying to convince not to procreate. Even if they followed your ethical guidelines, they can still ignore your claim that procreation would be ‘harming’ a possible child more than it relieves their own yearning, and there would be nothing morally ‘wrong’ about that, by your standards. So the success of your argument still relies on increasing awareness and reducing ignorance...

Not what I’m saying at all. You have in your head a concept that you think is close to what I’m arguing here, and you’re running with that instead of reading what I’ve actually written. I have never said ‘growth-through-adversity’, and I have never said that life should or ‘must’ be lived by more people - because I don’t believe that it should. Talk about strawman. Take a moment to try and honestly understand what I’ve written before rejecting it based on your own assumptions of what I must be saying simply because I disagree with you on something. — Possibility

But it does amount to growth-through-adversity.. Another model of this. Think your model through and once you start explaining it, oh yeah, it does juts become another case of self-help version of this. You just don't want it characterized like that. And no, you don't have to write it out again in a long paragraph. Collaboration is shorthand for this because I am thinking what these means all the way through. It involves learning through trial-and-error, with other people involved. That amounts to growth-through-adversity. It is its own scheme/model/game however much you want it to not be characterized like that. By putting another person into the world, you are de facto saying, "I want this for the other person, and I am willing to foist it on them".

They’re more afraid: of those who would ‘harm’ them, of bringing ‘harm’ to others, of an unwanted end to their precious existence, of losing loved ones, etc - everything has so much more value, both positive and negative. — Possibility

So this was more about envisioning, the positive ethics that are involved in a large antinatalism community. In effect, there would be collaboration but it would be a collaboration of pessimism. Everyone would recognize the situation, see it for what it is, and concertedly work together to prevent others from dealing with life. The collaboration is in the form of not creating the situation for others and continuing the cycle.

And with the loss of ever more individuals, each individual ‘suffering’ increases in severity for those who remain. How long do you think this antinatalism would last, once an individual recognises there are two options that would most certainly ease this intensity for themselves? Which option do you think would be more attractive? — Possibility

No, harvesting new people to reduce one's own harm would hopefully be understood by this crew as an illusion that self-perpetuates itself :).

So, while I admire the heartfelt motivation, as long as the priority is the individual you will never reduce the qualitative impact of ‘suffering’ in the world - not with antinatalism. And I maintain that it is the ethical perspective that lets you down, not the prescription of ‘don’t procreate’, which I would otherwise support. — Possibility

It would be the ethical prescription to encourage more harm to other people that would be letdown that isn't even considered by the current ideals. There's a blindspot there.

I haven't read through the entirety of the thread... it's 10 pages but I'll give some of my initial thoughts.

Roughly speaking, negative ethics would be about preventing or mitigating suffering while a positive ethics would focus more on creating well-being and happiness.

I feel like you're conceiving of this idea of positive versus negative ethics through a utilitarian lense. And yes, when you perceive of it that way there can definitely be internal contradictions. I'm not a utilitarian and I'm not interested in defending it. Personally, when I think of a negative ethic it's more like the biblical "thou shalt not" or a political rights-based approach which forbids you from clubbing someone over the head as you walk down the street (i.e. acknowledging their rights at the bare minimum.) It doesn't in itself make for a particularly good society, but it does accomplish the bare minimum.

If you want society to be at least half-decent - and I think most of us do- therein lies the impetus behind a positive ethic.

I feel like you're conceiving of this idea of positive versus negative ethics through a utilitarian lense. And yes, when you perceive of it that way there can definitely be internal contradictions. I'm not a utilitarian and I'm not interested in defending it. Personally, when I think of a negative ethic it's more like the biblical "thou shalt not" or a political rights-based approach which forbids you from clubbing someone over the head as you walk down the street (i.e. acknowledging their rights at the bare minimum.) It doesn't in itself make for a particularly good society, but it does accomplish the bare minimum. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't conceive negative ethics to necessarily be utilitarian. The version I discuss isn't, in fact. If anything it can be characterized as denotological or "Kantian". That is to say, one should respect the autonomy of the individual, in the realm of ethics, such that one does not violate the principle of non-aggression and/or non-harm. Exceptions would only occur if someone's autonomy was being violated or about to be violated. Thus, self-defense is permissible, etc. In the applied ethical realm of procreation, strictly following negative ethics would lead to an antinatalist conclusion. That is to say, by creating a new human, you are violating the non-harm principle (do not create conditions of unnecessary harm for others) and arguably the non-aggression principle (do not force others into conditions, even if you think it is best for them). Again, there are nuances, but it all revolves around taking individual autonomy seriously. Thus, as discussed in this thread, unconscious coma patients, elderly with dementia, and children are states where the individual has limited or no autonomy. However, something like birth will affect someone for a lifetime and in terms of the need to cause harm, is unnecessary.

Ok, all I'm saying here is that negative ethics can be viewed through many different lenses. A negative ethic could be as mild as don't murder or steal from people because it violates their rights. I'm not going to come in and defend the non-aggression or try to reconcile it with birth because it's just not something I've ever really been able to make sense of. As far as I've heard negative ethics are just about getting people NOT to do certain things and we can conceive of that in many different ways.

Ok, all I'm saying here is that negative ethics can be viewed through many different lenses. A negative ethic could be as mild as don't murder or steal from people because it violates their rights. I'm not going to come in and defend the non-aggression or try to reconcile it with birth because it's just not something I've ever really been able to make sense of. As far as I've heard negative ethics are just about getting people NOT to do certain things and we can conceive of that in many different ways. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I agree with this. In the context of this thread, the argument is that positive ethics should not unduly override negative ethics. That is to say, if I think happiness is about doing X, or some sort of program of habits and thoughts, I should not force someone into it, even if I think it would be good for them.

Ok, just keep in mind when you keep bringing up terms like "maximizing well-being" or "minimizing suffering" you're strongly, strongly hinting towards a utilitarian perspective of things. I've read Kant and he really isn't concerned with happiness or really even minimizing suffering. The NAP also isn't concerned with minimizing suffering.

Ok, just keep in mind when you keep bringing up terms like "maximizing well-being" or "minimizing suffering" you're strongly, strongly hinting towards a utilitarian perspective of things. I've read Kant and he really isn't concerned with happiness or really even minimizing suffering. The NAP also isn't concerned with minimizing suffering. — BitconnectCarlos

It's only Kantian or deontological in the sense that it is about a duty to a principle that considers the person qua person and not as utility to be maximized. Also, importantly (in my conception anyway), it is about not using people as a means. It is a strong version of this, as Kant's principle holds that you should not use people only as a means. However, I think this can be taken further, in that if you like the idea of a new person being born to do X and X (the parent's agenda for the child), yet this will inevitably cause harm to the child (as life has the possibilities for lots and lots of harm), then it is not permissible to force the parent's agenda on the child, as it is violating the non-harm principle (and the autonomous individual as someone who can be harmed and forced).

So what are we arguing about? — Possibility

Whether or not it's wrong

You might answer, ‘because I was hungry’ - to which they might then ask, ‘well, why did you have breakfast because you were hungry?’ The reasoning you give for initiating your action X, whether or not you employed that reasoning at the time, will eventually come back to a certain moral principle which reassures you that X was the right thing to do — Possibility

Really? I highly doubt this. What if I then asked you "why do you believe in this moral principle" you'll have to find some real world reason. This is an endless cycle. Eventually you'll have to answer "just cuz". If you asked me: ‘well, why did you have breakfast because you were hungry?’ I would answer "because hunger makes me have breakfast most of the time" or in other words "because that's how it is". I don't think I'm doing any good by having breakfast

or at least be more aware of where our moral principles contradict each other and where we discard them in favour of ‘survival instinct’, for instance — Possibility

I'm confused. I thought you were making the case that all of our actions have some moral support behind them. But here you're talking about survival instinct

these moral principles are those we deem ‘necessary’: not just a ‘should’ but a ‘must’. — Possibility

I didn't eat because I "must" eat in a moral sense. If by must you mean: has an overwhelming urge to then yes I ate because I must. There is nothing moral about that however. Just like there is nothing moral about a serial killer killing people die to an overwhelming urge to kill. To tell the difference between moral and other "shoulds" and "musts" replace them in the sentence with "would have to" and again with "would be wrong not to" and see which makes more sense

Example:
I must eat goes to:
I would have to/have to eat
I would be wrong not to eat

The first sentence make more sense. I'm pretty sure you're not meaning to imply the latter when you say "you must eat"

Anyone in their right minds’ is a subjective value structure. What you mean is ‘anyone in YOUR mind’. This is your perspective of their life and the life of their child, not theirs. Someone else’s evaluation of their own individual yearning to be a parent and the possible life of their own child is always going to be drastically different to your perspective. Suffering isn’t about quantity of instances, but about qualitative evaluation. As someone who places no value in the existence of either individual (only in the quantity of suffering they represent), your logical evaluation of their possible instances of ‘suffering’ means exactly squat to them. There is no way you can know what is true for either of them. — Possibility

Let X be the suffering due to not having a child. The person in question here is saying

My X >>> All the suffering my child will experience (including his own X)

Is this really an acceptable evaluation for anyone. That's like someone justifying murder by saying "my minor inconvenience due to having to meet this guy twice a week is greater than all the grief I caused by killing him"

There is only very few instances where I would believe both of these are true. Again, I don't "ban" procreation, if someone can show me that the first scenario is the case for them, sure have kids. You'll have one child every 200 couples or so then maybe, and that's being generous

they can still ignore your claim that procreation would be ‘harming’ a possible child more than it relieves their own yearning, and there would be nothing morally ‘wrong’ about that, by your standards — Possibility

How would there be nothing wrong by my standards. They can "forget to consider" it genuinely but if they actively ignore it of course that's wrong. A murderer can't "actively ignore" the suffering he causes and then claim to be doing nothing wrong.