Here is a claim by Richard Dawkins

"“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Well, seeing how these are not refutes to the argument nor have you made any argument, just responded with a matter of your personal dislikes, I'll be moving on to others.

I really don't care what you personally believe or feel convinced by; this is irrelevant to the discussion if you are not going to refute. I am extracting justifications for anti-natalism via centuries of science, history, and more - and only here to present arguments, not convince you of anything.

I’m not convinced because it’s a fallacy. “Bringing someone into the world is wrong because life is full of strife” is an is-ought fallacy. It’s like saying “Eating oranges is wrong because oranges grow on trees”. What the objective state of the world is cannot be used to argue for any ethical position.

Additionally, you’re not even referring to any suffering in particular when you say this. It can be known that your next child will not suffer at all, and it would STILL be wrong to have them, because life is full still of strife.

I didn’t rebut anything because I expected that you’d have more premises than “life is full of strife”. If that’s your only premise then there is your rebuttal.

It's not an "is-ought," fallacy and now I'm not convinced you have a clue what you're talking about, since you have completely personalized the debate to one of convince/unconvince you, instead of refutation of points or lacking the ability (or willpower) to compose counterargument as opponents.

Semantics, simplification and lack of contextualization. Imagine thinking I'm referring to "the world" or universality - which you seem to be confusing with objectivity, instead of directly discussing the ecological basis (of humans) to where it is actively demonstrated by anthropological, biological, sociobiological, ecological, medical and cognitive sciences (and beyond) - that certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal to biological (human) moral agents in terms of well-being. This does not require composing a list of 'particular sufferings' simply because you personally cannot apprehend what is being said; nor is your lack of apprehension a warranted refute or doubt.

You then replied with, "but there are people that are happy and enjoy living," which is not only not being mutually exclusive to my points as stated which is an indicator to me you are refusing the process of analysis to simply reaffirm your own beliefs and assertions over mine, but also lacks in holding any interesting relevancy to my arguments. Your posts have very little merit to mine, and it's bizarre you cannot even tell. Clearly, others have more to squabble for days with you.

since you have completely personalized the debate to one of convince/unconvince you — Cobra

It doesn't convince me because it doesn't make sense.

it is actively demonstrated by anthropological, biological, sociobiological, ecological, medical and cognitive sciences (and beyond) - that certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal to biological (human) moral agents in terms of well-being. — Cobra

Agreed. Certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal for our well being. And without certain things we will suffer. Let me shorten this quote to: "Life is full of strife".

There is no logical operation that then leads from this to "So you shouldn't have kids". That is my point. If there is a logical operation that leads from "Life is full of strife" to "You shouldn't have kids" what is it?

you are refusing the process of analysis to simply reaffirm your own beliefs and assertions over mine, — Cobra

It's not just some baseless belief. It is a fact that happiness surveys come back with most people being happy overall. I'm sure you can pull up a study on your own easily to affirm this. And not all happiness surveys are done in North Korea.

This does not require composing a list of 'particular sufferings' simply because you personally cannot apprehend what is being said; nor is your lack of apprehension a warranted refute or doubt. — Cobra

The point of the example was to demonstrate the absurdity that, even if you knew your next child will have a perfect life free of suffering, it would still be wrong to have them. Because life is still full of strife, even for that child. And if the only requirement for "You shouldn't have kids" to be true is for "Life is full of strife" to be true, then having that kid is wrong. But this is absurd. Which maybe hints that "You shouldn't have kids" does not follow even if "Life is full of strife" is true.

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. — khaled

Are you using your family member in this case? I'm not so sure. If that is the (weak) example you are going to give, then I would say that is indeed the price of the compromises in life that need to take place for anything to happen. As you say, MOST of what we do in harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves. However, here is a chance to no cause any unnecessary harm to anyone. No one has to be used as there is no one in the first place to be used. That family member already exists.. the compromise is inevitable. If that is the case, then that in itself should give you pause to bring people into this situation.

A more clear cut case of using someone, is if you sold your family member's car in order to give the money to charity. That wouldn't be right, even if that charity was going to benefit more from the money than your family would from their car.

Also, regarding taxes, laws, jails.. These are political actions, not personal ethics. If you're trying to get at something like, is it okay to stop a killer from killing.. I would ask, is that killer causing unnecessary harm? Stopping the killer is necessary harm, because it was he who was causing unnecessary harm. I also never said that once born, punishment and self-defense for violations of the axiom were not something that is legitimate. But I did mention that in procreation, here is a case where it is absolutely unnecessary.. There are no relative scenarios where we must weigh things like self-defense and punishment which are necessary to live in the community when violations of the axiom does take place.

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. — khaled

Agreed.

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. — khaled

I still think this is actually inadvertently perpetuating the harm, if you are going to use the aggregate approach.. You are just kicking the can down the road for yet more generations. When does the calculation stop? Not only is it hard to quantify the amount of harm/good a person actually contributes to the world, it might be a case of projection of what one wants to see than what might actually be the case. You using X product might have inadvertently killed thousands of Y across the world. I do know something for sure though, that no person suffered if they were not born.

Your post is brain damaged. Reread what I said when you're not so focused on being obtuse.

As you say, MOST of what we do in harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves. However, here is a chance to no cause any unnecessary harm to anyone. — schopenhauer1

False. There is no such chance. That is the point. There is a chance to not cause unnecessary suffering to the child. But in doing so you harm those he/she would have helped. Either choice causes harm.

That family member already exists.. the compromise is inevitable — schopenhauer1

The people that my child would help already exist. The compromise is inevitable. See?

A more clear cut case of using someone, is if you sold your family member's car in order to give the money to charity. That wouldn't be right, even if that charity was going to benefit more from the money than your family would from their car. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't be so sure. Depends on the charity. And how rich the family member is.

Let me modify the example: If you had a billionaire relative and you were driving around in one of his cars (with his permission) then a child runs from around the corner and you are about to run him over, so you swerve and crash the car (that is not yours) to save the child. Is that wrong? The only difference between this scenario and donating to charity scenario is that here the cause is immediate. If you do not swerve, you WILL kill someone. Which is why I say it depends on the charity. If you knew that you could save a life by selling that car, I wouldn't be so sure it's wrong to do so. Similar to how you wouldn't mind crashing the car to save a life, even though it isn't yours.

But I did mention that in procreation, here is a case where it is absolutely unnecessary — schopenhauer1

This is precisely the premise that I am challenging. No, it is not absolutely unnecessary. Even framed in terms of harms done, both choices (have a child and don't have a child) will do harm. So one can say they are having a child to avoid an even worse harm on others. You would say that that is "harming the child for a higher purpose than them". Then I would say that NOT having a child is similarly "Harming the people the child would have helped for a higher purpose than them"

I still think this is actually inadvertently perpetuating the harm, if you are going to use the aggregate approach.. You are just kicking the can down the road for yet more generations. — schopenhauer1

As I said, I don't see this as a problem. Similar to how you don't see extinction as a problem, if at every step of the way we are making a morally acceptable choice, I don't see continued life as a problem if at every step we are making a morally acceptable choice.

Not only is it hard to quantify the amount of harm/good a person actually contributes to the world, it might be a case of projection of what one wants to see than what might actually be the case. — schopenhauer1

Hard to quantify =/= pointless to quantify. In the same way that it is hard to quantify the amount of suffering your child will experience.

You using X product might have inadvertently killed thousands of Y across the world. — schopenhauer1

And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer. Same argument applies to both sides. It is difficult to calculate the consequences of both choices. And not having a child is NOT simply the harmless option. That is the point.

If the system in question is just the parent and the child, then yes having a child is definitely the more harmful option.

But when you consider wider consequences it is no longer that clear cut.

Your post is brain damaged. — Cobra

My post doesn't have a brain :wink:

Reread what I said when you're not so focused on being obtuse. — Cobra

Done. Still doesn't make sense.

Good to know you're incapable of answering simple questions about your argument though:

If there is a logical operation that leads from "Life is full of strife" to "You shouldn't have kids" what is it? — khaled

My post doesn't have a brain :wink:

It applies to all of them. Continue to strawman and contradict in your own posts about lack of sense-making.

And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer.

Literally brain damaged. But loGiCk.

And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer.

Literally brain damaged. But loGiCk. — Cobra

It makes just as much sense as "You using X product might have inadvertently killed thousands of people". Which is what it was in response to.

Your misspelling of "logic" is telling....

Continue to strawman and contradict in your own posts about lack of sense-making. — Cobra

I'm not trying to strawman. But you refuse to explain your position. You just keep saying "go back and read". I do. It doesn't make sense. What IS your argument for AN stated as simply as possible? How do you go from brute facts about life (that people have to play a certain game to not suffer) to "Having children is wrong"? It doesn't compute.

If we knew the next child to be born was going to have a perfect suffering-free life, is it wrong to have them? If so why?

It applies to all of them. — Cobra

First sensical thing you said. Posts do not, in fact, have brains. Well, second to be fair, after "life is full of strife"

Your misspelling of "logic" is telling.... — khaled

Literal brain damage. You can't even distinguish from me mocking you; and still follow up with strawman's. I know you can't (lack the ability?) to compute anything I said in previous arguments because you wouldn't keep bringing up shit I never said or implied.

You are literally talking about oranges in an apple orchard. Not making sense to you =/= unsound argument, and you reading nonsense and hypotheticals into something in un/intentional bad faith that isn't there does not serve as a warranted refute or counterargument. You quite literally just want to reaffirm your intellectual laziness and hear yourself speak.

into something in un/intentional bad faith — Cobra

You're the one that started with the ad-hom, and general rudeness, and refuses to explain their position. Telling me to go back and read nonsense doesn't make nonsense sensical. Nor is it an explanation of your position.

You still have not responded to the critique:

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. — Cobra

There is nothing here that leads to "Therefore you should not have children". And I agree that giving birth enables harm. 3 times now I say this. 3 times you can't respond.

Or the hypothetical:

If we knew the next child to be born was going to have a perfect suffering-free life, is it wrong to have them? If so why? — khaled

you wouldn't keep bringing up shit I never said or implied. — Cobra

I am literally quoting you..... And not out of context either.

I'm down to have an actual discussion if you were to actually make it clear what your argument is instead of "go back and read". If I'm wrong about it, or misunderstanding you, "Stop misunderstanding me you brain damaged idiot" doesn't help. And you blame me for not wanting a discussion, which is hilarious.

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. — Olivier5

I believe they’ve said as much, but I’m not sure I buy it. If it were just a personal choice to not have children, why all threads? Are they not there to try to convince others that their personal choice is somehow morally superior?

No one should have to suffer to keep the species going. — Andrew4Handel

And no one should have to suffer in order to stop the species from growing.

Yeah, because as I said in post #300, you quoted me when I wasn't even talking to you to simply say, "I'm not convinced," while offering no warranted refute or counterargument — which by default personalizes the discussion and communication style, which is in fact, rude and entitled. You are owed nothing.

This turns an objective debate into a matter of convincing you (i.e. making you understand and convert), rather than focusing on deconstructing impersonal arguments and refuting them in good faith.

3 times you can't respond. — khaled

And something failing to abide by your logic does not mean it is nonsensical nor devoid of sense, and I have no idea why you keep bringing up "logic" when literally every counterargument you make to others does not follow the previous premises; such as the example I just gave. And even more nonsensical is deducing that "surveys," inform public health and public safety, and therefore, "happy people = disproves the objective basis of suffering," that is enabled by being a conscious moral agent. This does not mean life = suffering, as you continue to strawman.

I ignore your lazy critique, because it is not a critique, and I already covered it three times in my previous posts which is how I know your apprehension skills are relatively poor.

Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, impose restraints to ones biological drive to reproduce, or make "ought" arguments. It asserts that it is a fact that to not give birth means to not give birth to an enabled sufferer. All this other gibberish saying anything but is the same strawman you keep pulling out the sky or getting from anti-natalists arguing the position poorly or in bad faith.

This turns an objective debate into a matter of convincing you (i.e. making you understand and convert), rather than focusing on deconstructing impersonal arguments and refuting them in good faith. — Cobra

Ok. Didn't expect this reaction. I was only trying to be nice when I said "I don't find this convincing", I wasn't trying to make it about convincing or not convincing me. I should not have sugar coated. Next time I'll just say what I mean directly: "This makes no sense". Noted.

And something failing to abide by your logic does not mean it is nonsensical nor devoid of sense — Cobra

There is no "my logic" and "your logic". There is logic, and our imperfect attempts at using it. I am saying that while you think you have a logical argument, it is not in fact logical at all. As you cannot point to the logical operation used between your premise and conclusion.

"I'm not convinced," while offering no warranted refute or counterargument — which by default personalizes the discussion and communication style, which is in fact, rude and entitled. — Cobra

No. I admittedly misunderstood you there. I thought you were making the claim that "life is suffering" or similar. When all you meant was that life is a "dangerous game" so to speak. If you don't do certain things, you will get harmed. Agreed there. But I don't see how that would lead to "So you shouldn't have kids"

And how in the world is "I'm not convinced" rude? Cmon.

And even more nonsensical is deducing that "surveys," inform public health and public safety, and therefore, "happy people = disproves the objective basis of suffering," — Cobra

Admittedly, that was a misunderstanding. I didn't think you were saying "there is an objective basis for suffering enabled by us being conscious". We are agreed there. I thought you were saying that "life is terrible" or something along those lines.

I ignore your lazy critique, because it is not a critique, and I already covered it three times in my previous — Cobra

Could you point me to where you answered how "There is an objective basis for suffering enabled by birth" leads to "So you shouldn't have children"? I must have missed it. Should be no trouble to quote it if you have done it 3 times...

No what happened is, you ignored the problem that your premise does not lead to your conclusion. "Your premises do not lead to your conclusion" is not something you can just handwave away.

Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, or make "ought" arguments. — Cobra

Huh? Here I thought Antinatalism is the position that says that having kids is wrong. Antinatalism doesn't give "ought" statements? Ridiculous. You just don't know what antinatalism means then.

First definition when looking up the word on google:

"Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally bad)." -Wikipedia

Do I have to point out where the ought statement is?

Also what about the hypothetical? Do you even actually think having kids is wrong?

Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, impose restraints to ones biological drive to reproduce, or make "ought" arguments. — Cobra

So, you define anti-natalism as neither anti some behaviour, nor about giving birth / having children? That seems odd.

regarding taxes, laws, jails.. These are political actions, not personal ethics. — schopenhauer1

So what? Your system has them as immoral because they are using/imposing on others to benefit an aggregate. Just repeating 'they're political' is not an argument. It's like saying, to steal a phrase I read recently “Eating oranges is wrong because oranges grow on trees”. You need to make a case as to why things which are are immoral when not political become OK when political.

You're ethics is leading to more and more worrying consequences the more you explain it. First we have laws and taxation obtaining this weird status where they're basically immoral, but rescued by politics. Then we have this intimation that somehow anything a politician tells you to do becomes morally OK even if it wasn't beforehand (the most serious concern to date by a long shot), add to that latest revelation, the idea that property is sacrosanct and cannot be taken from a person for any reason whatsoever, that we're not even allowed to so much as take a paperclip from someone to save a school-full of children.

Do you seriously not see what you're doing by digging yourself further in here? I know I've been a bit acerbic, but really it's based on the fact that I find it very hard to believe that you can't see these consequences a mile off. So it seems that you're wilfully continuing with your advocacy despite them, which is just antisocial (if not down right sociopathic). But I thought something similar about @khaled too and was revealed to have been manifestly wrong (for which I should properly apologise). So maybe I am with you.

But the more you ignore them and dig your heels in, the less I'm able to to believe that you genuinely can't see these consequences, or their antisocial implications. This latest refusal to engage with the problem of making laws, taxation and the seconding of personal property for greater harm reduction, is not helping that impression.

Are they not there to try to convince others that their personal choice is somehow morally superior? — Pinprick

Don’t we all do that once in a while? Makes for fun discussions... :-)

I believe they’ve said as much, but I’m not sure I buy it. If it were just a personal choice to not have children, why all threads? Are they not there to try to convince others that their personal choice is somehow morally superior? — Pinprick

I would say it's more like "They're wondering how you can not see the conclusion that they see because they assume you share the same premises"

But it's more than a personal choice. Most people who don't have kids don't think it's wrong not to have kids.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. — Andrew4Handel

I find this a rather sad view of the universe, and boring too. A more interesting approach in my view is to understand the function of suffering, as absolutely essential to staying alive. An animal without a sense of pain would quickly die. Suffering is not really a problem. It’s a solution to a problem.

Literally brain damaged. — Cobra

Unbelievable co-incidence that three brain-damaged people should end up writing on the same thread, because I didn't think your posts made any sense either. It's a good job we've got you around to identify this previously undiagnosed epidemic of mental health conditions. Do you find yourself identifying brain damage in a lot of people you talk to by any chance?

Most people who don't have kids don't think it's wrong not to have kids. — khaled

Even people who have kids rarely see anything wrong in not having kids.

I believe that people who willingly try to not have kids do it for a reason. It’s not always philosophical, political or moral of course. Sometimes they are afraid of being tied, of losing their freedom. But even these fears are sometimes expressed in general philosophical terms, disguised behind philosophy. It’s called rationalizing an irrational fear.

You need to make a case as to why things which are are immoral when not political become OK when political. — Isaac

I would be fine with saying that we should employ a different set of rules for aggregate ethical dilemmas than we do for individual ethical dilemmas. I wouldn't agree with it but at least it doesn't sound ridiculous to me, sounds like a somewhat reasonable starting point. The problem is the line between "aggregate" decisions and individual decisions is very blurry.

If I can somehow predict the future, and I find every person your future child (were you to have one) would help then I bring them all together in a room, why do you treat harm done to them as "aggregate" but harm done to the child as concrete and immediate. By not having a child, you are in fact harming everyone in that room. There is no "abstract cause" here. It's not like saying "For the country", where you are asked to harm someone for the sake of a fiction. There are real people in that room.

You could argue that we should not impose harm on someone for the sake of saving someone else who you are not responsible for, and I would think that either side there is an extreme. By this principle, you cannot wake up the lifeguard who is sleeping on the job, even while a man is drowning and you can't save him yourself. On the opposite end we have things like: Throwing the innocent fat man in front of the train to save 2 people (or even 1) who were being idiots and playing on the track being completely fine.

I think there is a point at which you can use people to prevent harm on other people, which sets a high, but not unreachable, standard for when it is ok to have children. I'd say we do so all the time. Taxing the rich for example, even though they don't benefit from it much if at all in comparison to what they're paying.

It’s called rationalizing an irrational fear. — Olivier5

I'd say it's healthy to fear screwing over someone for life. Especially if you have a history of dealing with severely disabled people/family members. Or you come from a 3rd world country and have seen how bad things can get. Or you have depressed family members/friends. Etc

While I may not be AN anymore, the number of people I would think have no business having children is probably greater than most. I definitely still think people in general take the decision too lightly.

While I may not be AN anymore, the number of people I would think have no business having children is probably greater than most. I definitely still think people in general take the decision too lightly. — khaled

I hear you, but some decisions cannot realy be taken based on facts or argument. They require a leap of faith.

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

I think there is a really interesting discussion to be had here about just how we're supposed to deal with risk morally. All behaviours are risky, so there must be a way to distinguish permissible risks from impermissible ones. This cannot be either just some statistical probability, nor can it be merely that there is a risk-free alternative available, because both of these lead to unsolvable dilemmas that oblige us to travel down indefinite causal chains to calculate risks or find alternative paths.

What we usually do is only consider a specific group of risks, which we try to minimize. This is what traffic regulations are: They are meant to protect against specific kinds of risks, but not all possible risks (so the risk of arriving at the wrong time and place, for example, is ignored). What risks are relevant is then a normative question. What risks should we minimize? What can we ask everyone to do, without it becoming self-defeating or paralyzing? We can ask everyone to give raising kids their best shot. To inform themselves as to the relevant science, and to make sure there aren't any obvious barriers to following that advice. But we can't ask anyone to be perfect, or control outcomes exactly.

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

So you think, yes. But since in doing so I am not taking anything away from them, nor even withholding something I am capable to give, I struggle to see how what I do could nevertheless be wrong.

If I can somehow predict the future, and I find every person your future child (were you to have one) would help then I bring them all together in a room, why do you treat harm done to them as "aggregate" but harm done to the child as concrete and immediate. By not having a child, you are in fact harming everyone in that room. There is no "abstract cause" here. It's not like saying "For the country", where you are asked to harm someone for the sake of a fiction. There are real people in that room. — khaled

I think there is a point at which you can use people to prevent harm on other people, which sets a high, but not unreachable, standard for when it is ok to have children. I'd say we do so all the time. Taxing the rich for example, even though they don't benefit from it much if at all in comparison to what they're paying. — khaled

The problem is that none of these analogies get to really what's happening..
By procreating someone, you are enabling the conditions of harm. That is not the same as some concrete example of breaking someone's leg to give someone else some more beneficial thing. Rather, a whole lifetime's worth of suffering will befall that person. So it is hard to measure. But besides this measurement problem, what I want to convey is that you are not "making do" with what is already here to try to ameliorate the situation in the case of procreation as you would be for people who already exist. So one guy exists and another guy exists and so we are in this inextricably intertwined situation. Rather, now you are making, from complete scratch, another situation of enabling harm, so that you can ameliorate the situation. I just don't see that as right to do, even if it means that you think it will have some beneficial outcome. Enabling harm by creating harmfulness "anew" in a new person, so that you can "fix" something for people that were already born is just not good enough to say, "Oh, this justifies creating the harm for that person". You can keep digging and say, "Why"? And I would probably go back to the dignity argument. You are overlooking that person's dignity for the cause of ameliorating other people. So I never argued straight up that it is all about harm reduction. Otherwise, I indeed WOULD be an aggregate utilitarian, which I NEVER claimed that I was. Rather, I have always maintained in this thread that there is an important element about not overlooking the dignity of that person, etc. So that involves not using them, even if it is trying to ameliorate unnecessary harm. So, if it is to be an ethical claim (and not a political one), then it is not only about harm reduction or some aggregate calculation, but rather how the dignity is recognized in people as well, which we are doing by NOT affecting them negatively in the sense of "stealing from Sam to pay for Sally", or however that phrase goes.

On another note, I also think you have a problem with the aggregate because someone with a better model, that can see the "bigger picture" can simply override your more primitive model of "just seeing what's in front of your face". The better model might actually predict that it was better overall not to procreate that child, no matter how prima facie it emotionally "seems" to bring them into the world to for some benefit. So it is indeed a slippery slope for your own stance.

So that involves not using them, even if it is trying to ameliorate unnecessary harm — schopenhauer1

Again, this “dignity argument” seems extreme. It means you shouldn’t wake up the life guard who is sleeping on the job even if someone you can’t save is drowning. Because that involves using them. And this is unlike the “stop the gunner” example because the lifeguard did nothing wrong. You could argue that “sleeping on the job” is something wrong, but then I’d just modify the example to being about your ex-lifeguard friend sleeping as a relative of his is drowning, you can’t wake him up. Seems extreme to me to mark any form of “using people” as wrong. A simpler example is taxes. But you sort of handwaved that because it’s “political”

someone with a better model, that can see the "bigger picture" can simply override your more primitive model of "just seeing what's in front of your face". The better model might actually predict that it was better overall not to procreate that child — schopenhauer1

Unlikely. Considering that most people are a positive influence. If they weren’t, then as Isaac said, we’d all be happier as hermits. But we’re clearly not. If humans were on average such that we are better off alone and isolated, since we are usually a negative influence to others I’d agree with you, but it isn’t the case. Heck, it that were the case AN would probably be the default position for our species and you’d need to convince people that having children is acceptable.

Also until this “better model” is found this is just idle speculation.

By procreating someone, you are enabling the conditions of harm — schopenhauer1

Rather, now you are making, from complete scratch, another situation of enabling harm, so that you can ameliorate the situation. I just don't see that as right to do, even if it means that you think it will have some beneficial outcome. Enabling harm by creating harmfulness "anew" in a new person, so that you can "fix" something for people that were already born is just not good enough to say, "Oh, this justifies creating the harm for that person". — schopenhauer1

Then I’d reply to you with the same reply I gave cobra. The mere fact that you are forcing someone into a game is not a problem. The problem would be if they will suffer AND that there is a less harmful alternative. Otherwise, if the former is the principle you go by (it’s wrong to put people in games, period), then you shouldn’t have a child even knowing that they will have a perfect life. Because even though they will have a perfect life they’re still playing the game, they just happen to really like it. But I find that conclusion absurd. So that leads me to believe that making someone play a game is not in itself a problem. The problem is if there is a chance they get harmed AND there is a less harmful alternative.