Interesting. But I have a few questions.

parent had to sign a statement that said — schopenhauer1

Who would control this? A judge or notary? Also imagine they have kids without signing this statement.. which kind of punishment we should consider? Jail or compensation with interests?

Back again to your question I will say yes. It probably would prevent a lot of births because most of the people tend to have kids without consideration or responsibility. They just don’t care about what can happen to the kid. They are not responsable for the new human being created. Probably if somehow we can read this statement to them they would reconsider it and think more deeply about the topic and circumstances.

I wonder if this would cause someone to stop and think more when considering procreation and putting more people into the world.

First, they would wonder what was wrong with the writer. Second, they would wonder why they are being forced to acknowledge his beliefs. Third, they wouldn’t sign it.

Who would control this? A judge or notary? Also imagine they have kids without signing this statement.. which kind of punishment we should consider? Jail or compensation with interests? — javi2541997

So, in no way is this supposed to be about how can this be implemented. I realize this will probably never happen. Rather, this is simply about the affect it would have if it was something that was in place. Although, I can see the position that the affect of the statement would be intrinsically tied up with the practical considerations of having to sign it.

Back again to your question I will say yes. It probably would prevent a lot of births because most of the people tend to have kids without consideration or responsibility. They just don’t care about what can happen to the kid. They are not responsable for the new human being created. Probably if somehow we can read this statement to them they would reconsider it and think more deeply about the topic and circumstances. — javi2541997

Cool. I was wondering if anyone thought this would promote giving more consideration. Thank you for your thoughts.

First, they would wonder what was wrong with the writer. Second, they would wonder why they are being forced to acknowledge his beliefs. Third, they wouldn’t sign it. — NOS4A2

As I said to previous post, this is just about what affect the statement would have, not the practical considerations of enforcing it. But I do understand that the affect of the statement may be intrinsically tied up with the practical/political implications of having to sign such a statement. But, can you answer the question without considering the actual signing of the statement itself being the sticking point?

Third, they wouldn’t sign it. — NOS4A2

They wouldn’t sign it then they are not ready/qualify to have kids.

I wonder if this would cause someone to stop and think more when considering procreation and putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

No.

But if the trends toward "euthanasia" and wrongful life and wrongful living lawsuits become stronger, then this could create the conditions in which people might become more careful about producing children. Ie. when matters of life and death become something that is acceptable to talk about and to routinely threaten people with, it seems people will be more likely to distance themselves from having children altogether.

On the other hand, another factor that could contribute to this being more careful about producing children is to objectify and commercialize children even further (a trend that is already well underway) and to strenghten the social image of a child as a luxury, a potentially prohibitively expensive luxury, in the same category with fancy sports cars, diamond necklaces, or fur coats.

people can't even remember to use a condom but you want them to read the fine print of a legal document :lol:

What the fuck? How many of these copycat antinatalist topics are you going to start? There is no philosophical content here. This is ideological spam.

Wherever driving licenses are administered people sign forms indicating they've read the materials which explain the hazards of the road (along with guidelines for safe driving, etc) ... and yet drunk and aggressive and distracted driving persist, keeping the roads hazardous. Thus, schop1, auto insurance is always, everywhere, in demand.

ideological spam. — SophistiCat

:yum: (Gonna try that with hot sauce!)

people can't even remember to use a condom but you want them to read the fine print of a legal document — darthbarracuda

Well but with this legal document we can create something like an insurance to those kids whose parents are not responsible enough.

But if the trends toward "euthanasia" and wrongful life and wrongful living lawsuits become stronger, then this could create the conditions in which people might become more careful about producing children. Ie. when matters of life and death become something that is acceptable to talk about and to routinely threaten people with, it seems people will be more likely to distance themselves from having children altogether. — baker

Cool. Thanks for your thoughts.

people can't even remember to use a condom but you want them to read the fine print of a legal document :lol: — darthbarracuda

Haha, very true.

Well but with this legal document we can create something like an insurance to those kids whose parents are not responsible enough. — javi2541997

Interesting.. what would that look like?

Wherever driving licenses are administered people sign forms indicating they've read the materials which explain the hazards of the road (along with guidelines for safe driving, etc) ... and yet drunk and aggressive and distracted driving persist, keeping the roads hazardous. Thus, schop1, auto insurance is always, everywhere, in demand. — 180 Proof

Ha, yes, and what would that look like in this case? And what do you think would be the effect/affect if people actually did read the statement?

Like I thought I'd said: "drunk and aggressive and distracted" fucking/nataling will
persist. :wink:

I wonder if this would cause someone to stop and think more when considering procreation and putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

A personal desire for having children seems to be a far greater drive than the well-being of said children. No matter how dire the living conditions, wherever there are people, there are people multiplying. So no, I don't think it would make people stop and think. If only.

What the fuck? How many of these copycat antinatalist topics are you going to start? There is no philosophical content here. This is ideological spam. — SophistiCat

What's funny here, is one of my themes is, "What if procreating humans is ideological spam"...ideological cultural continuation perpetuating with each new person over and over.

Also, I find it ironic you are spamming my thread with your spam about this being spam.

Also, I find it interesting you find yourself on such a high horse on what is right forum ettitquete to go out of your way to seek my thread out to grace it with your comment. It's a pretty large forum. Find another thread and move on if you don't like it.

Also, I find it interesting that the comment you did write had no philosophical comment itself.

After thinking about your comment, my response to what makes something real "spam" on a forum is if people just kept creating threads AND NEVER RESPONDED to anyone. If they did not engage or develop or help move along the thread, then indeed, you can say people are just generating things without the intention of developing them. But here I am responding to your non-helpful comment.

Like I thought I said: "drunk and aggressive and distracted" fucking/nataling will
persist. :wink: — 180 Proof

Yes, good points.

Interesting.. what would that look like? — schopenhauer1

It could be as a legal document full of conditions where somehow the State would be part of it as an insurance so if the parents completely make the life of the kid so hard the State or justice can help him/her.
For example, the family is broken. Then, the kid is born despite their parents signed the paper. Later on, the public service could take part of it providing a good education or at least not leaving the kid in abandonment stigma

A personal desire for having children seems to be a far greater drive than the well-being of said children. No matter how dire the living conditions, wherever there are people, there are people multiplying. So no, I don't think it would make people stop and think. If only. — Tzeentch

Haha, good points. Does having a strong personal desire for something justify it? What would curb an initial personal desire? What kind of argument would it take? Is there something analogous we can look to here for something that will cause great harm, but can be personally desired and one does not go for it due to this?

Does having a strong personal desire for something justify it? What would curb an initial personal desire? What kind of argument would it take? Is there something analogous we can look to here for something that will cause great harm, but can be personally desired and one does not go for it due to this? — schopenhauer1

Here's some anecdotal evidence:

Back in college, I had a classmate who wanted to have a child despite being single (after finishing college and getting a job, of course). This was just around the time when legislation about artificial insemination, sperm donation etc. was being passed here, so the topic was current ; IIRC, there was even a referendum about it. Her argument was that it would be cruel to deny single women at least this pleasure of having a child. (I thought it was absurd for a single woman to want to have a child.)

This was her initial personal desire. From what I gathered, her reasoning was that if she's too plain to get a boyfriend, then at least the state should make it possible for her to get a sperm donor, to at least have a child if she can't have a husband.

What could curb that initial desire of hers? Well, my ranting about her romantic ideas about romance being idiotic and that having a child out of contempt for herself being a useless sacrifice of herself didn't help.
It seems that her desire to have a child, even as a single mother by a sperm donor, was driven by her desire to feel validated as a human being, which was to her the second-best option to having a child by a husband.
I can't think of anything that could change that.

It seems that her desire to have a child, even as a single mother by a sperm donor, was driven by her desire to feel validated as a human being, which was to her the second-best option to having a child by a husband.
I can't think of anything that could change that. — baker

But she wasn't presented with this argument. Granted, based on what you said, this would not have convinced her. I think this is a good example of what often happens. What often happens is people only take inventory of their own considerations. Notice how nothing was considered in regards to the future child itself. The assumption is always that obviously the future child will have X, Y, Z positive result. This is a bit Pollyanna at best and fits their own narrative as justifying the personal reasons that they wanted to be the case in the first place.

So I guess if you wanted to curb the personal desire, then it would be hammering home a perspective change from oneself to how it affects the other person. It is all about, "What is this doing to another person?" It shouldn't be about, "How does this create X experience for me?".

Then, when it orients to the other person it becomes a political issue as it affects other people. And then you have to justify your decisions in terms of, "What are you trying to get out of this other person? A laborer for the economy? A being that has to experience X things? But why? If no one was born, no one had to do anything. No one "has to" in the positive sense do anything. But certainly negatives can be prevented for any future person". Hence this isn't just an agnostic issue of people can do or not do.. there are negative fallouts.

What would curb an initial personal desire? — schopenhauer1

An understanding of that personal desire.

But insight into one's own psyche doesn't seem to come naturally to most.

What's funny here, is one of my themes is — schopenhauer1

Even if it was funny the first time, after countless repetitions it no longer is. I don't understand why the mods allow this sort of thing here.

I’m not an antinatalist but I honestly think something like this should be implemented. It feels like it should be common sense, at least. Most philosophers aren’t antinatalist either but I’ll bet every professor in ethics recognizes that child rearing is a gigantic responsibility and people ought to do it responsibly. This seems like the best way to do it. If someone says no then they’re not fit to parent

Even if it was funny the first time, after countless repetitions it no longer is. I don't understand why the mods allow this sort of thing here. — SophistiCat

Go complain elsewhere. Why are you still talking with me?

This kind of statement would definitely give a second pause to whether this is a good idea.

I guess, if no one is born (yet), other than the parent's personal self-interested reasons, is there any positive reason that someone should necessarily be born? Certainly a negative reason of prevention of suffering can be argued, but I can't see the case for any positive reasons.

well, you’ve said many times this is abhorrent to you (and it’s abhorrent to me too) but I think one example of a genuinely positive reason to procreate spurs from a hedonistic utilitarian framework. Parents have kids because they want to, and under this frame it’s all good because there’s a positive aggregate that is maximized. In fact, I’d wager a lot of parents use a watered-down version of this justification since most tend to follow their intuitions for applied situations instead of following ethical systems.

True.. But I think there's actually a broader point that oddly @NOS4A2 brought up. One of the simple reasons that AN is a non-starter for most is its bleakness and hopefullness. People like happy things. People like beautiful images. People like roses and sunshine. AN is like this bleak gothic abnormal thing to most people. It's, like, a bummer dude. So, something that makes people feel depressed, will not be a motivation for them to want to engage with it, EVEN if the logic is actually quite good.

Perpetuating the human race, I suppose. Though, I would not believe anyone who proclaimed to care enough about the human race as a whole to procreate for this reason.

The obvious question to ask is, why not adopt a child and provide a loving home for an orphan?