The consequences if everyone stopped having kids would be the death of the species. I'm assuming everyone (most? some?) here would agree that's something we should avoid. Therefore, not everyone should be childless.

I'm assuming everyone (most? some?) would agree that's something we should avoid. — RogueAI

Why? Not why the assumption, but why the agreement? If life itself is good, and if diversity of species is conducive to life, wouldn't life be better off without us?

It depends on whether space-faring creatures would evolve again. If not, all life on Earth will end when the sun gets too hot.

It depends on whether space-faring creatures would evolve again — RogueAI

And assuming there is not life on other planets that we'd ruin too if we get there.

Would any of the anti-having-kids people change their minds if it was discovered that we were the only technologically advanced species in the galaxy? The observable universe (I know that's impossible, but just go with it)?

Would any of the anti-having-kids people change their minds if it was discovered that we were the only technologically advanced species in the galaxy? — RogueAI

It wouldn't change my mind. But I have to qualify my position here: I'm not necessarily antinatalist. I'm more for rolling population back to a sustainable level, like 35 people per 10k square miles of temperate zone, or less than a million world wide. That's assuming our current rate of consumption for each individual foot print. If we could scale back the sucking rate of resources, then maybe more people.

When I was a little boy some guy from the Fish and Game came to our school and taught us about the food pyramid, with very few apex predators at the top, and an ever-widening structure as it went down the food chain, with countless trillions of tons of insects, grasses, etc. When you turn a pyramid upside down, it won't take much of an earthquake to knock it all over. I figure with 7b+ apex predators sitting atop an ever-shrinking prey base below, we are looking at what Wall Street would call a "serious correction."

Anyway, I've spent a great deal of time roaming "wildlands" (HA!) of the American West. I think about 35 people could travel 50 miles from the center of their territory to link up with another group doing the same, once a year, to trade mates and keep the gene pool viable. That would be ideal for a hunter-gatherer society. So with today's tech, we could live in a few cities around the world and continue our tech advancements, etc. while still living a great lifestyle and not jeopardizing the Earth upon which we depend.

But, short a compromise like that, if it came down to 1. self-induced, intentional extinction vs 2. continuing on our current trajectory, I'll take what's behind door number 1.

good points.

...or something like that. — schopenhauer1

Fuck it, dude I can't be bothered any more. Carry on without me. — unenlightened

...just a note to say that this conversation between you two has made my life worthwhile.

The end of the human species would not be a bad thing, and even if it was, that wouldn't justify procreating in order to prevent it.

The only people who think preserving the humans species is a good thing are, you know, humans. By any objective assessment, we are not a force for good in the world. We cause an obscene amount of suffering to other creatures. The idea that our absence from the world would be bad is laughable, as laughable as suggesting that the extinction of cancer would be bad.

Imagine that the only way to preserve the species, would involve creating humans who'll live in absolute agony for their entire lives. So, we can preserve the species, but the species would exist in agony thereafter. I think now even most prejudiced humans would agree that it would be better if the species went extinct. The brute continuation of the species doesn't really matter much, not compared the amount of suffering such lives create. More important to prevent suffering, then, than to preserve the species. As there's no reason to think our suffering matters more than the suffering of other creatures, and as even happy human lives cause masses of suffering to other creatures, it is better if we go extinct.

I think there's no reasonable way of avoiding that conclusion.

But anyway, even if the extinction of the human species would somehow be morally bad, that wouldn't automatically mean it is justifiable to procreate to prevent it. I mean, imagine no-one wants to procreate. Is it morally justifiable to force people to breed to prevent extinction? Surely not. So, it seems more important to respect another's autonomy than it does to preserve the species. Well, breeding itself violates another's autonomy - for those who are brought into existence here have been forced to live here by other people's breeding decisions.

So, imagine no one wants to procreate. And the species consequently goes extinct. Well, even in the unlikely event that this is a bad thing, no-one did anything wrong, did they? People just voluntarily decided not to breed. No-one was wronged. No injustice was done. The species went extinct. But that did not wrong anyone. We do not have obligations to the species, but to each other.

In those cases, the preservation of the species doesn't justify the means. But that's not what we're dealing with. People want to procreate, and kids don't live in agony. Some do, but percentage-wise, it's a very small amount.

The point of the agony case was to show that it is more important to prevent suffering than it is to preserve a species.

Humans cause vast amounts of suffering. It is more important to prevent that suffering than it is to preserve the species.

And the point of the example of everyone voluntarily deciding not to procreate was to show that a) there is no positive obligation to preserve the species and b) that it is more important not to impose significant things on people without their consent than it is to preserve the species.

As it is more important not to impose significant things on people without their consent than it is to preserve the species, and as procreation clearly involves imposing something significant on someone without their consent, it is more important not to procreate than it is to preserve the species.

I thought these points were obvious.

The point of the agony case was to show that it is more important to prevent suffering than it is to preserve a species.

Humans cause vast amounts of suffering. It is more important to prevent that suffering than it is to preserve the species.

And the point of the example of everyone voluntarily deciding not to procreate was to show that a) there is no positive obligation to preserve the species and b) that it is more important not to impose significant things on people without their consent than it is to preserve the species.

As it is more important not to impose significant things on people without their consent than it is to preserve the species, and as procreation clearly involves imposing something significant on someone without their consent, it is more important not to procreate than it is to preserve the species.

It is impossible to get the consent of something that does not exist to bring it into existence. That's an impossible burden to meet.

Yes, I know it is impossible to get their consent. That doesn't mean you can do without it.

Let's say I like coercing other people. Well, the nature of coercion is such that one cannot consent to be coerced. So, if I want to coerce you, I can't get your prior consent. Does that imply that it is morally okay to coerce people? Er, no. The opposite. Coercion is default wrong precisely because it can't be consented to (a point Kant made much of).

You can't consent to be coerced. So it is default wrong to coerce you. You can't consent to be brought into being here. Therefore it is default wrong to bring you into being here.

I remember one of my philo professors making that argument years ago. You might be right.

 There is an old legend that king Midas for a long time hunted the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, in the forests, without catching him. When Silenus finally fell into the king’s hands, the king asked what was the best thing of all for men, the very finest. The daemon remained silent, motionless and inflexible, until, compelled by the king, he finally broke out into shrill laughter and said these words, “Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is—to die soon.” — The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music, Ch. 3

Corollary: The only consistent-from-first-principles antinatalist is the successful suicide who has not procreated. Otherwise, it's just bullshit sophistry.

One decides to have a child or not, and one does not decide not to have a child on behalf of the child one does not have, nor does one decide to have a child on behalf of the child one has not yet had, and might never have. — unenlightened

:up: :100:

Corollary: The only consistent-from-first-principles antinatalist is the successful suicide who has not procreated. Otherwise, it's just bullshit sophistry. — 180 Proof

Would successful homicide, suicide who has not procreated be even more consistent?

Less consistent.

Fuck it, dude I can't be bothered any more. Carry on without me. — unenlightened

Ok, you can just try to explain how my particular argument is not an argument.

...just a note to say that this conversation between you two has made my life worthwhile. — Banno

I believe the Joe Pesci line belongs here...

Less consistent. — 180 Proof

Since you didn't explain why, I will assume because the homicide would create more pain (among the remaining loved ones) than it would remove by the killing? If so, wouldn't that apply to suicide also? And what if more people are killed than are left to suffer because of the killing? (i.e. pressing the button in D.C. and Moscow.) Again, I'm new to this antinatalist stuff so I'm trying to understand the various arguments.

If you are antinatalist because you want to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, then do not procreate AND cease your own suffering asap. The means fulfill the end without undermining it. However, murder increases suffering which isn't consistent with your antinatal motivation. Apparently my previous posts weren't as clear I'd thought. Is this one clearer?

Is this one clearer? — 180 Proof

It is clearer, and it confirms my assumption set forth in the post to which you just responded.

So, as asked in that post, if one can kill more others (stop their suffering) than would be left behind to suffer the loss, would the net justify the killing in the eyes of an antinatalist? And likewise, if one found a person who no one would miss at all (Earl, in Goodbye Earl, Dixie Chicks) would it help to take him out?

Dixie Chicks — James Riley

I liked the Dixie Chicks. Don't neglect, then, the unknown unknowables, aka, unanticipated consequences, the unexpected.

One does not have to be an aggregate utilitarian to be an antinatalist. Thats where your conclusion went wrong.

Don't neglect, then, the unknown unknowables, aka, unanticipated consequences, the unexpected. — tim wood

:up:

One does not have to be an aggregate utilitarian to be an antinatalist. Thats where your conclusion went wrong. — schopenhauer1

I didn't think I had a conclusion? But now that you mention it, is the antinatalist only concerned with heading off the suffering of one? And if more than one, then why? Wouldn't aggregation be a consideration, even if not utilitarian? Or maybe even then?

Aside from euthanasia (assisted suicide), killing people increases the suffering of kin, lovers & friends of the victim. Killing people also increases fear in neighbors and the wider community; and fear is suffering. Lastly, killing someone increases her suffering because the victim is unwilling, thereby traumatized before death.

Aside from euthanasia (assisted suicide), killing people increases the suffering of kin, lovers & friends of the victim. Killing people also increases fear in neighbors and wider community; and fear is suffering. Lastly, killing someone increases her suffering because the victim is unwilling, thereby traumatized before death. — 180 Proof

I get that. I was talking about a net. I apparently have not been able to explain myself, let me try again: There are 7b people on the planet. Joe and Vlad press he button and wipe out 6.5b. Therefor, .5b are left to suffer, but 6.5b no longer suffer. Where the guy who had no kids and then kills himself is consistent, and the guy who has no kids, kills a few people and then kills himself is less consistent because he creates a net increase in suffering, is the guy who has no kids, kills more than are left behind to suffer, and then kills himself more consistent? Or, substitute the 6.5b with one "victim" who has no loved ones and who no one would miss.

I disagree that it is not an argument.
— schopenhauer1

You are wrong to disagree. — unenlightened

This is a Monty Python routine. Really, it is.

:100: Humor is necessary. No, it isn't. Yes it is.