But that is incredibly unlikely. — khaled

It’s also incredibly unlikely that someone born will end up not finding life worthwhile. However, it is at least somewhat likely that someone who desires to have kids, but does not do so, will become depressed, which can in itself lead to suicide. Which is more likely is debatable, but risk of serious harm is involved regardless.

Would Adam and Eve suffering from childlessness compare to the suffering of all mankind thus far? — khaled

How are Adam and Eve (whom I hope you refer to metaphorically) responsible in any way for harm they did not directly cause? Adam and Eve’s choice to have children in no way influenced anyone else’s decision to do so. You can’t reasonably compare sufferings after someone is already dead. IOW’s someone’s birth can only affect those people that are currently alive, and vice versa.

I am doing so in both situations. Try comparing potential harms in the case of birth. There is no way having children is the less harmful alternative. — khaled

If not having one child causes at least one suicide, then having a child is less harmful. And that is a genuine risk, perhaps not that likely, but that’s beside the point.

It is NOT always okay to risk harming others by building a pipeline that was my point. It matters what that pipeline accomplishes. If it alleviates more harm than it is likely to cause then it's fine. If it doesn't (say, because it connects to nowhere and some rich guy is building it for literally no reason) then it's wrong. — khaled

Didn’t your objection to pushing the $1000 button show that you’re NOT ok with risking harm, even if the risk is small and the potential reward is great?

Here you seem to be ok with risking harm if the probability is small and/or the reward is greater.

We know the child suffers 20%. Let's assume THEY don't have kids. After they grow up, we can assume 5% of that 20 comes from them not having children. Then we take into account their spouse, another 5%, and the parents of the couple (in this case you are part of them), another 20%. So it comes out to: 20% + 5% + 20% for a total of 45% total for having a child that then doesn't have a child. — khaled

To begin with, having a child created 20% suffering for one person, and 5% suffering for 4 people for not having a child. This totals out to 20% for having a child, and 30% for not. If the child does not have a child, then he, his spouse, and both of their parents suffering would increase an additional 5% (I wasn’t considering this to be included in the original 20%). This equals an additional 30% for everyone involved, which comes out to 60% total when the original 30% is added in. If we assume stable percentages, then every choice to not have a child creates an extra 30%, this is also assuming everyone involved does desire to have a child.

Let's assume they DO have a child. Then the percentage is still bad. 15% from the person themselves (since I counted childlessness as 5% and that won't be the case here) and 20% from their child. 35% right there. Not even considering whether or not this child will have kids or not (both will increase the percentage) — khaled

The 15% (20% the way I calculated it) isn’t caused by having a child. So the only additional suffering caused by having a child is the 20% the child will suffer. I’m using 20% as a sort of baseline that everyone will start at regardless of their choice to have children or not.

And this is WITH counting childlessness as 25% of a person's suffering throughout their life which I find inaccurate in the first place. — khaled

That’s not how I was meaning to count it. Childlessness should only increase suffering by 5% for everyone involved. The 20% is just meant to be a baseline.

Because I think the alternative is even worse for them* — khaled

Which means that you think the act will benefit them. Why resuscitate someone knowing that doing so will cause them to just experience future suffering? They’re already dead, so it isn’t like doing nothing will cause them any harm. Sure, they may prefer to be alive, we’re they able to actually have a preference, but the same can be said about the unborn. Is being dead somehow worse than not existing? If being dead is worse than being alive, then not existing is worse than being born.

Yea. — khaled

I’m not actually into arguing that life has intrinsic value. I don’t see a way to evaluate life objectively. But assuming that it is, wouldn’t it be better to create life?

But your principle would imply that if I think I know your price I MUST press the button for you. I don't think either of us thinks so. — khaled

The principle isn’t to provide pleasure, so there is no “must.” You just have no right to stop me from pushing it if I want to.

A bit extreme eh? What if the parent says "I kinda don't wanna have a kid". By your principle that would not be enough to outweigh the "benefits to the child" (still think this doesn't make sense but ok). So in that case they should be FORCED to have the child. That's the consequence of requiring that people don't deny pleasure. — khaled

No. The principle is passive. It isn’t about forcing anyone to do anything, it’s about not interfering. That’s it. If a couple wants to have a child, and they believe doing so will cause less harm than not doing so, then I have no right to object. They’re free to pursue pleasure. The only caveat would be if I thought their analysis was wrong, and that having a child would cause more harm. I’m not obligated to force people to experience pleasure, or pursue it. The act of forcing someone to do something itself causes harm, so should be avoided except in those rare circumstances that doing so actually reduces harm (I.e. school, prison, and childbirth in certain situations).

Life is often better than the alternative. That's my point and it is indeed a very simple point.
— Olivier5

Key word: Often. What justifies taking the risk? When the alternative is harmless? (supposedly) — khaled

The odds are good enough.

If a couple wants to have a child, and they believe doing so will cause less harm than not doing so, then I have no right to object. — Pinprick

Why of course, it’s not your decision to make. I trust that the AN are not trying to stop other people from conceiving children, and that they are just personally opposed to it for themselves.

The argument would be that no odds are good enough when a harmless alternative is available. Which is an argument I agree with. For example: Even if 90% of people like a game, I still can’t force you to play it. Because not forcing you to play it is harmless. Whereas forcing you to play it has a 10% chance to be harmful.

There’s no such thing as a harmless alternative, though.

sure. Which was the counter argument that got me.

Yes, Isaac put it forth well.

Is having children more that a theoretical possibility for you, Khaled?

Yes. Not one I’ve given much thought to either way though.

Well, in my experience, all it takes is meeting a girl who wants kids, and who likes you enough that she wants them with you. That’s the power of nature. Then once you have them you will love them, and they will love you back. Until they become teenagers of course, but that too is the power of nature, pushing them out of the family cell and into the wild.

One needs to trust life a little. As I said, it’s often better than the alternative.

As to your question of whether I can see it, I have to say I really struggle. Perhaps in glimpses. But it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the framing. It's not so much that I can't see that, while you're alive, you're bound up in lots of relations which of course mean you have to compromise. But I don't see not existing as an alternative to compromising. Not existing is simply absence. It's not an alternative to anything, because it is not anything. And the decision to not have children happens in the sphere of existence, so it's itself part of the compromises. How could it be any other way? — Echarmion

It's bound up for us, the already existing.. We essentially have the binary existential choice of keep existing or die. We don't have to put a new person into this choice. We don't have to put a new person into the game. We don't have to make that decision on someone else's behalf that will affect them, and as you mentioned, cause conditions for harm and violate their dignity by putting some goal above and beyond that of simply preventing suffering. It's not a hard ethic to follow, which is why I wonder why so much vitriol. It is simply, don't procreate. Not so hard. I'm not saying, "Don't save that drowning person". I am not saying, "Don't punish that criminal", I'm not saying, "Don't do X to already existing person". Rather, here is a chance to cause absolutely no unnecessary harm. Why would you not make that choice, if it is available?

Again, going back to compromise. Once born, survival, etc. becomes part of the game. We do have to make compromises to survive. It's not ideal.
— schopenhauer1

But "not ideal" is still better than nothing, is it not? I mean at least people that exist have some choices. They get to experience sone happiness and exercise some freedom. It's not like we're yanking them out of paradise to incarnate them on earth. They get something. Maybe what they get is nasty, brutish and short, but it cannot be said that this makes it worse than nothing. — Echarmion

I actually think that unless existence is an absolute paradise, it is not appropriate to bring someone into it.

So here is basically how people justify this existence...
1) People are not committing suicide left and right, so it must be better than immediate want for suicide.
Suicide is not a reflex that we have for harm. It is inbuilt that harm to the body is scary and painful.. this goes for supposed "painless" methods that intellectually, we might understand from afar, and becomes scarier as one might try to do it. This is not a good argument why existence must be good "enough".

2) Harm/suffering creates meaning (I call this the Nietzschean stance).
To me, this sounds like post-facto justification. Since we can't get rid of suffering, we need to do the less optimal choice of making friends with it and incorporating it in our credos. So, "No pain, no gain" or "Life is meaningful only after some hardship" becomes the norm. I have a problem with bringing people into existence knowing that they will experience hardship and then justifying this as "not bad" because they will find meaning in it. It does violate the axiom of dignity/harm, and it seems just a way to make this seem not so bad.

A utopia/paradise is indeed something that is pretty much unimaginable. Why? Because even the harm/suffering that one needs for meaning in this world would either be a) irrelevant in the paradise (and we don't know what it means for suffering to not exist), or b) it would exist but only if you wanted it, and can be turned off at any time. Boredom would also be irrelevant, so the whole, "But suffering makes us less bored" doesn't hold up in this context.

This brings me to another problem.. Because suffering in this world cannot be turned off at any time, people think that it must be a good or necessary thing. That's not true, just because it is the case. Just because there is no alternative, doesn't de facto make it good or necessary.

Also, putting this scheme of overcoming harm/challenges/suffering as above and beyond the actual harm/challenges/suffering is putting again, another thing above the dignity of the person. All that matters is no unnecessary harm befalls someone, when you can prevent it. Here is a chance to do that absolutely, no compromises.

But at least while alive, we can strive for the ideal. At least when alive, the ideal exists as an ideal. Without that, not only is the ideal unfulfilled, it's gone. Nothing there to have ideals in the first place. Isn't it better to strive constantly for the ideal, rather than fulfill it in some tiny way, only to destroy it utterly?

I actually don't think it's a problem to strive for unattainable ideals. I actually think it's one thing that possibly makes life worth living - to have this goal always to guide you. It's perhaps what people look for when they look for "spirituality". What I don't see is why giving the next person the chance to strive for the ideal is not worth something to you. — Echarmion

The ideal for not causing suffering is not procreating. Once alive, the ideal of not causing suffering is broken down into necessities of survival in a community. It then turns into the compromises I am discussing. Are there better modes for our community? Perhaps, but that's another discussion. I personally think we can do better acknowledging that we are in conditions of harm and form communities of pessimism that acknowledge this case. Gripe away everybody, gripe away.. But not man people will agree with me on that.. You see, more compromises.

sure. Which was the counter argument that got me. — khaled

I would just say that perhaps you might want to look at the original foundations on which your particular AN stance was using. I find there to be a lot of problems with aggregate-style utilitarianism.. You start getting things like Effective Altruism movement, and all that which when taken to the extreme, makes us become slaves to the best outcome, no matter what.

However, even if we were to use your aggregated scenario.. by putting more people into harm's way (birthing them) you are just perpetuating the situation in the long term which is not fixing it.

Also, I would say that in the realm of ethics, using someone for some greater good, is a violation. Giving to charity is a good thing. Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not, cause you are using someone, even if it is supposed to help a greater amount of people, or some abstract cause. So rather, I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. That person is the one whose whole life will be affected by this decision. All instances of harm will befall that person. An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. Rather, we should help those people in need without using someone else, similar to taking someone's money to give to charity situation.

We don't have to make that decision on someone else's behalf that will affect them, and as you mentioned, cause conditions for harm and violate their dignity by putting some goal above and beyond that of simply preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1

We do because suffering is no more prevented by avoiding birth than it is by giving birth, as I've already pointed out.

here is a chance to cause absolutely no unnecessary harm. — schopenhauer1

No it isn't. Avoiding birth causes the harm that the child would otherwise have mitigated. This has been explained. The vitriol is because you avoid this counter-argument by trying to claim that avoiding aggregate harms is not ethical. A a fundamentally antisocial attitude "I only care about me and mine".

I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. — schopenhauer1

That's already the case. Again, I've explained this. There us a real already existing person who will suffer harm because of the lack of a next generation person. That is just unequivocally true. Ignoring is not a satisfactory counter-argument. We don't even need aggregate suffering. Pick one actual person. Whatever potential suffering prevents them from just becoming a hermit, that is the suffering that a child can grow up to reduce. And it's not 'using someone for some esoteric goal' it's the same goal - reducing suffering.

The only way around it is to say that only the person who's being interfered with is relevant. Which leads you to the absurdity that it would be immoral to stop a gunman heading towards a school. Something you've still not denied. And you wonder why the vitriol? Seriously?

makes us become slaves to the best outcome, no matter what. — schopenhauer1

You only have to pick the best outcome if you are the one causing the harm directly.

An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. — schopenhauer1

The line is blurry. And the group isn’t any more “abstract” as the suffering of the child themselves. I’m not sure that the system under consideration should not include the aggregate. If it doesn’t, we can’t get taxes, or laws, or a whole lot of other stuff. When should we favor the individual over the aggregate? I’ll sleep on it.

Point is that I can flip this to say “This group of people will suffer if you abstain. By abstaining you are harming this group of people for a cause that goes beyond each of them individually. That cause being: not harming the child”

It’s not clear to me why the child should take precedence.

by putting more people into harm's way (birthing them) you are just perpetuating the situation in the long term which is not fixing it. — schopenhauer1

Which is fine. As long as at every step of the way we know that having a child is the less risky option. In the same way that extinction was fine since at every step we were making the right decision.

We don't have to put a new person into this choice. We don't have to put a new person into the game. We don't have to make that decision on someone else's behalf that will affect them, and as you mentioned, cause conditions for harm and violate their dignity by putting some goal above and beyond that of simply preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1

Sure, we don't have to but that's not saying anything about whether we should. You're just short-circuiting ethics by making you preferred outcome also the basic ideal. And so you arrive at ridiculous claims like "Me having any goal apart from preventing suffering violates the dignity of future persons".

Claiming that your, and only your, moral position is the one with only positives and no drawbacks is a good sign that you're no longer actually saying anything apart from "I am right because I am".

I actually think that unless existence is an absolute paradise, it is not appropriate to bring someone into it. — schopenhauer1

But an "absolute paradise" is just a meaningless phrase. Not only can it not practically exist, it doesn't even have theoretical properties. It cannot be defined. You're comparing existence to something incoherent.

You even realize this yourself, but somehow this has no implications for your position. You just gloss over it and change the topic. That should be a further red flag to you that your position is no longer rational.

All that matters is no unnecessary harm befalls someone, when you can prevent it. Here is a chance to do that absolutely, no compromises. — schopenhauer1

Do you literally believe this? That all that matters is that no unnecessary harm befalls someone? Did you arrive at this conclusion by some process of reasoning of is that just what you personally consider to be the meaning of life?

Before I rebut this, do you have any comments on this part:

Also, I would say that in the realm of ethics, using someone for some greater good, is a violation. Giving to charity is a good thing. Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not, cause you are using someone, even if it is supposed to help a greater amount of people, or some abstract cause. So rather, I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. That person is the one whose whole life will be affected by this decision. All instances of harm will befall that person. An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. Rather, we should help those people in need without using someone else, similar to taking someone's money to give to charity situation. — schopenhauer1

Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not — schopenhauer1

You do realise this is exactly what taxes are? The idea that taxes are immoral has an unpleasant pedigree.

Sure, we don't have to but that's not saying anything about whether we should. You're just short-circuiting ethics by making you preferred outcome also the basic ideal. And so you arrive at ridiculous claims like "Me having any goal apart from preventing suffering violates the dignity of future persons".

Claiming that your, and only your, moral position is the one with only positives and no drawbacks is a good sign that you're no longer actually saying anything apart from "I am right because I am". — Echarmion

But you can say that about any ethical claim.. Why? Why? Why? Why? So then, let's turn this a bit and look at your thought process.

First, why would causing unnecessary harm, absolutely (and I defined that versus relative once born), not a good thing?

But an "absolute paradise" is just a meaningless phrase. Not only can it not practically exist, it doesn't even have theoretical properties. It cannot be defined. You're comparing existence to something incoherent.

You even realize this yourself, but somehow this has no implications for your position. You just gloss over it and change the topic. That should be a further red flag to you that your position is no longer rational. — Echarmion

I don't think it is meaningless. I don't see why just because that world doesn't exist or is not the actual world means that it is wrong to compare with this world. That is to simply say that, there may be a world where it is good to bring people into but it is not this one, and I gave the major reason why not this world. Just like the case of existence vs. non-existence, then don't even bother defining the paradise world, just look at this world as sufficiently not paradise.

Do you literally believe this? That all that matters is that no unnecessary harm befalls someone? Did you arrive at this conclusion by some process of reasoning of is that just what you personally consider to be the meaning of life? — Echarmion

IF there is a chance to cause unnecessary suffering, than don't cause it, sure. That's not all that matters though, clearly. I have to eat if I don't want to starve and die, for example.

First, why would causing unnecessary harm, absolutely (and I defined that versus relative once born), not a good thing? — schopenhauer1

Assuming you are asking me under what circumstances causing absolute harm can be a good thing.

For example, if you can expect that the person will be equipped to deal with all the common harms and will themselves act morally most of the time.

This seems entirely consistent with everyone's interests, and so would be "good" in my estimation

For example, if you can expect that the person will be equipped to deal with all the common harms and will themselves act morally most of the time.

This seems entirely consistent with everyone's interests, and so would be "good" in my estimation — Echarmion

Ah, so I just think that
a) We can't know if they will be equipped (that's more the approach of @khaled, but I agree.. there is that 10% or whatever figure it is). Also, it is hard to really know how to judge this. At some points someone might be okay, others not, and then there is total evaluation which is separate than the individual experiences. Which version is it? I don't think we can say, and there are certainly times one someone would ideally rather not have had those experiences.

b) Even if I equipped someone, putting them in the game in the first place is wrong.

The question then is how "enabling suffering" is equivalent to causing suffering in moral terms. — Echarmion

The question is not now that, because this not conducive to my previous post, and seems to be another strawman.

I did not say that - nor is that what anti-natalism claims. You are construing this from poor arguments of anti-natalism that may be formed off a weak understanding of it.

Once you are born (or rather reach a certain stage in gestation), you become a moral agent, meaning constrained by homeostasis - as a conscious agent that must maintain ones well-being and health, harm - pain - suffering is then enabled because consciousness is enabled. Obviously, you must be reach a certain gestational point - or be born - to be eligible as an inevitable sufferer. not "suffering".

I also stress that 'denying people the ability or capacity to reproduce' is not a antinatalist position, just another strawman.

This does not mean "living is suffering" as I stated, but instead that you now exist in a world as a (human) moral agent to which you are constrained by agency that constantly says "If I do not do this, I will inevitably suffer" or make suffering worse.

Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, cognitive, etc flaws (and other elements).

This seems a questionable assertion. How is suffering not dependent on the person experiencing it? Is there some empirical or otherwise objective way to measure suffering? — Echarmion

Because these things are orthogonal to human ecology regardless of partial human non-compliance, subjectivity and what is personal, human homoestasis demonstrates a race toward optimization independent a few rebellious individuals that believe they are immune to languish and mortality.

It is a fact that lack of vaccinations for deadly disease will kill the majority of us, so the majority of humans getting vaccination optimize public health and well-being. This demonstrates that a species not working toward optimization will inevitable languish. It does not vary from 'person to person', nor is it just subjective.

This is does not imply that subjectivity has no place. Clearly, you do have some say on what hurts you as an individual, but I do not see why this is relevant to ecological discussions on mass scale. As demonstrated in your same argument, you recognize that anti-natalism (denying someone's biological desire to reproduce cases harm) on the objective level distinct from what is observable in the object, and that is why we are debating here today.

When we say that animals suffer, we don't usually refer to anything objective though. We're merely projecting our own self awareness on the animal and concluding that we would experience suffering in their place. — Echarmion

Of course it isn't a fiction.

Slicing a dog's head off as being 'harmful' is not not merely a projection of self-awareness nor empathy. It is determined by the fact that the animal will inevitably languish (thus increasing it's suffering) aka "bad", rather than optimizing to assist it's will to live.

Before I rebut this, do you have any comments on this part:

Also, I would say that in the realm of ethics, using someone for some greater good, is a violation. Giving to charity is a good thing. Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not, cause you are using someone, even if it is supposed to help a greater amount of people, or some abstract cause. So rather, I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. That person is the one whose whole life will be affected by this decision. All instances of harm will befall that person. An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. Rather, we should help those people in need without using someone else, similar to taking someone's money to give to charity situation. — schopenhauer1

Hard to sell. No taxes, no laws, no jails, etc. Also can be taken to many unpleasant extremes. Say I want to donate to charity. But there is someone in my family who is a strict capitalist and very much against the idea of donating to charity. If I donate, I would certainly be harming that person for a purpose outside themselves. Heck, I would say MOST of what we do is harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves.

What I definitely agree with however is that appealing to goals like “For mankind” or “For the country” as justification to hurt someone is utter BS. If you want to harm someone, the alternative has to also be harmful to specific people, not to some abstract cause for the act to begin to be considered acceptable. That is exactly the case with birth however.

a) We can't know if they will be equipped (that's more the approach of khaled, but I agree.. there is that 10% or whatever figure it is). Also, it is hard to really know how to judge this. At some points someone might be okay, others not, and then there is total evaluation which is separate than the individual experiences. Which version is it? I don't think we can say, and there are certainly times one someone would ideally rather not have had those experiences. — schopenhauer1

Sure. And this makes it risky to do so. Problem is, there is also a very high chance someone will get harmed by NOT having children. Which makes having children acceptable in cases where the latter trumps the former. Aka, when someone can be a good parent.

b) Even if I equipped someone, putting them in the game in the first place is wrong. — schopenhauer1

What if the current players need them? Then not putting them in is harming the current players. I would say that there comes a point where it becomes acceptable to put them in in that case. Because in this case it is not some abstract cause that they’re being used for, it is the same cause: To ensure I do as little harm as possible.

Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, etc flaws (and other elements). — Cobra

Seems unconvincing or at least over dramatic considering most people are happy. Despite the fact that people have to constantly do things to live, I don’t think that in itself can be used as an argument when most people are fine doing these things, heck, prefer to do these things. This sounds like a pessimistic argument for AN which I never bought.

Unless you're apolitical or abiotic, I find this optimist argument to be completely delusional. Personal (happiness/personal desires), do not inform public health and public safety.

I don't know what to tell you, but this thinking is insane to me.

Hey, thanks. I just answered E. Maybe you can extract from that. By "objective" I mean constrained by homeostasis and ignoring this inevitably leads to languish or frustrates the biological need to optimize and "live". The acts that mitigate or optimize are not a matter of opinion.

Personal (happiness/personal desires), do not inform public health and public safety. — Cobra

I wasn’t referring to my personal life, but to the fact that surveys of happiness often (I think always) have the population being overall happy or at least satisfied.

I am not talking about "you" in specific, I use it a generalist fashion.

The fact of the matter is "happiness" does not solely inform public health or public safety; cancer patients can be happy but this is irrelevant to the fact that a cancer patient will inevitably languish (and suffer), without medical treatment.

I am not saying that there is no subjective or personal basis, I am saying that is not just these things, and understand subjective and objective to not be mutually exclusive with one another. Clearly, those with personal preferences for X can still coexist with objects.

If 200 people get together and take a survey on whether or not 4+4 = 8; and all vote that is actually 3,000, and are satisfied with this 3,000, clearly from what we know of mathematics there is an objective basis without being merely a subject to what everyone 'thinks'. The same can be said here. Anyone can vote and say they are "happy" in North Korea; yet it is demonstrated the citizen are suffering and being harmed from lack of proper medical care.

But this is off topic. I'd like to stay on the topic of antinatalism, not veer off into your personal opinions of feeling unconvinced. You are more than welcomed to refute my previous post, otherwise I'll be moving on from the discussion.

But this is off topic. — Cobra

Really? It seemed to me that you wanted to use the fact that in life you are constantly striving merely to survive, as an argument for AN. I’ve heard it before and was not convinced by it. Being in a state of constant striving is not clearly a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.

The fact of the matter is "happiness" does not inform public health or public safety; cancer patients can be happy but this is irrelevant to the fact that a cancer patient will inevitably languish (and suffer), without medical treatment. — Cobra

Fair enough. Point still stands though. Being in a state of constant striving is not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.

Really? It seemed to me that you wanted to use the fact that, in life, you are constantly striving merely to survive as an argument for AN. I’ve heard it before and was not convinced by it. Being in a state of constant striving is not clearly a bad thing if you enjoy said striving. — khaled

Well, "seemed" is idly speculative and not to be confused with the actual case, the facts of the case, analyzing or interesting information. Put what I just said into context of my original post. I already said in that post at minimum, what anti-natalism is.

If you are a human agent, you belong to human ecology and are constrained by human flaws i.e., biology, physiology, psychology, cognition, etc. These are facts not determined or dependent on 'personal human happiness.' or 'personal feelings' .. so I don't get why you keep bringing it up. It is a fact that we are constantly driven (biologically), ecologically (morally), and so forth to optimize because if we do not languish occurs. How this relates to antinatalism involves you reading my post, contextualizing and understanding what is being said.

Like the mathematics example, reality does not care what a bunch of non-mathematician optimists say 4+4 is or how they feel about it, because there exists an objective basis.

you become a moral agent, meaning constrained by homeostasis - as a conscious agent that must maintain ones well-being and health, harm - pain - suffering is then enabled because consciousness is enabled. Obviously, you must be reach a certain gestational point - or be born - to be eligible as an inevitable sufferer.
— cobra

Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, cognitive, etc flaws (and other elements). — cobra

You are making the same strawman that antinatalism is saying "living is suffering" or "life is suffering", which is not the case. I am making an argument that giving birth enables this (by the way of consciousness); which is a FACT. The non-conscious abiotic 'in life' things cannot be sufferers or suffer.

Fair enough. Point still stands though. Being in a state of constant striving is not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.

No point stands at all, because this is not any point I was making nor have you made any point whatsoever.

Even so, this is just a repeat of what you just said were 'fair points' and were in agreement with. Enjoyment/happiness, blah, blah. Buzzwords with synonymous meanings that do not negate the fact that what is good for the well-being of everyone is not solely dependent on whether or not someone enjoys or does not enjoy it. Ethics does not care if you're a masochist or not.

If you are a human agent, you belong to human ecology and are constrained by human flaws i.e., biology, physiology, psychology, cognition, etc. These are facts not determined or dependent on 'personal human happiness.' or 'personal feelings' .. so I don't get why you keep bringing it up. It is a fact that we are constantly driven (biologically), ecologically (morally), and so forth to optimize because if we do not languish occurs. — Cobra

Sure.

How this relates to antinatalism involves you reading my post, contextualizing and understanding what is being said. — Cobra

Which is what I tried to do but apparently incorrectly. It would help if instead of restating what I already understand that you state how it relates to AN.

Like the mathematics example, reality does not care what a bunch of non-mathematician optimists say 4+4 is or how they feel about it, because there exists an objective basis — Cobra

Sure. And I don’t see how the objective basis can be used to argue for AN. It is a fact that we have to continually strive not to suffer. So what?

One thing that is definitely a harm for all life is death.

No one knows what happens after we die. In the Christian theology I grew up with you were either a born again Christian or you would spend an eternity in hell. But no one knows a) what their death will be like or b) what happens after

The pronatalist's on here are Clearly in denial about the extent of suffering and their involvement in it.

No one should have to suffer to keep the species going.