How would anyone know the converse? I don't see the justification in assuming this is the only life we've ever lived. A popular interpretation of QM implies there are near infinite copies of me in other real universes. If this (possibly) happens spatially, why not temporally? — RogueAI

We work with what is known. We can imply anything.. QM theory says... (place any possibility because infinite multiverse).

If we do not find some way for controlling fertility on a global scale, then nature will find a solution for us, and we won't like it. — Bitter Crank

:100:

As is said nowadays in Discord, Facts.

We work with what is known. We can imply anything.. QM theory says... (place any possibility because infinite multiverse).

It is not known that we only have this one lifetime. You're making an assumption.

It is not known that we only have this one lifetime. You're making an assumption. — RogueAI

Based on what is known.. We can't know what we don't know..

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever?


This is about absolute antinatalists, the kind who believe that producing any child is immoral.
It's not about selective antinatalists, the kind who believe that only some people should not have children. — baker

They get bragging rights to a non-existent audience.

Based on what is known.. We can't know what we don't know..

What evidence do you have that we only have one lifetime? How is that a known thing?

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

A lot of hard work they are probably not prepared or willing to do.

Not sure your point... — schopenhauer1

It's a simple question. How has expressing your particular antinatalist stance worked out for you?
Are you happier now? Do people respect you more? ...

What evidence do you have that we only have one lifetime? How is that a known thing? — RogueAI

Indeed.
This is one of the reasons why I think that the strongest position that the antinatalists can take is something like this:
"I do not want to cause any suffering to others." (Formulated in 1st person singular.)

Ie. focusing on the intention, on the desire not to cause suffering. This way, one also skirts all the issues of when exactly does a person come into existence, potential rebirth/reincarnation scenarios, calculations of how much suffering a potential new person is likely to experience etc.

he strongest position that the antinatalists can take is something like this:
"I do not want to cause any suffering to others." (Formulated in 1st person singular.) — baker

Which leads to moral absurdities like not wanting to trip up a gunman who's about to massacre a thousand innocent people. So that should be discarded without a second thought. By the time they face their first moral dilemma they'll already be faced with weighing smaller harms against greater ones.

The problem is that a moral is about how we treat others and we consider them to apply to others, so the enacting of any moral, by definition, causes suffering. It either restrains someone from something they otherwise wanted to do, or it pushes someone to do something they otherwise would rather have not done. If it does neither, then it's not a moral, it's just 'whatever we wanted to do anyway'. Both of those consequences are a form of suffering (not being able to do something you want, having to do something you don't want). In fact they're basically the archetypes of suffering. So morality based solely on avoidance of suffering without any aggregation or weighing is simply not morality from the outset.

So you're saying that morality causes suffering?

So you're saying that morality causes suffering? — baker

Yes. Enacting a moral course of action, in order for it to not count simply as 'whatever we wanted to do anyway' inevitably involves suffering either the burden of doing other than one would otherwise prefer or that of refraining from doing that which one would otherwise prefer.

If it does neither, then it's not a moral, it's just 'whatever we wanted to do anyway'. — Isaac

So you exclude the possibility that the two can overlap?
If you do, on what grounds?

So you exclude the possibility that the two can overlap?
If you do, on what grounds? — baker

I don't exclude the possibility that the two might sometimes overlap, but if they necessarily overlap, then morally 'right' (as opposed to morally 'wrong') becomes a meaningless judgement of an action. "Is this right?", would be exactly the same question as "would I like to do this?"

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

I remember reading a story once about this person, a girl I'm not sure, who's planning a party. She makes a list of her friends and other people she wants to invite. It so happens that she knows someone, someone who she wants to invite, but soon realizes that that just won't work out - this person, for better or worse, doesn't get along with the other people already on the invite list. There's simply no way that this person will have fun at the party - outnumbered and disliked at the same time. She decides not to invite this person for the better.

I remember reading a story once about this person, a girl I'm not sure, who's planning a party. She makes a list of her friends and other people she wants to invite. It so happens that she knows someone, someone who she wants to invite, but soon realizes that that just won't work out - this person, for better or worse, doesn't get along with the other people already on the invite list. There's simply no way that this person will have fun at the party - outnumbered and disliked at the same time. She decides not to invite this person for the better. — TheMadFool

But how does this address the antinatalist scenario, given that you posted the story in reply to the OP question?

But how does this address the antinatalist scenario, given that you posted the story in reply to the OP question? — baker

Well, anitnatalists mean well - they don't want to see people suffer. The girl in the story means well too - she doesn't want the persona non grata to suffer. Like it or not, that so many great minds, with a few exceptions of course, have been preoccupied by suffering says a lot about the way the world really is. Such exceptionally talented thinkers would've been better employed and would've gotten better results doing something else e.g. trying to formuate a theory of everything. I have nothing more to say.

Like it or not, that so many great minds, with a few exceptions of course, have been preoccupied by suffering says a lot about the way the world really is. — TheMadFool

What do you mean -- what does it say about the world that so many great minds have been preoccupied with suffering?

Such exceptionally talented thinkers would've been better employed and would've gotten better results doing something else e.g. trying to formuate a theory of everything.

Well, for comparison, in Buddhism, they say that there is suffering, that it has a cause, and that there is a way to undo that cause; they also say that suffering is something to understand.

antinatalism is simply destructive and as such not good.

Same way auto destruction is harm against myself, antinatalism is harm against humanity.
Both are bad.

Same way auto destruction is harm against myself, antinatalism is harm against humanity. — SpaceDweller

Surely you wish that some people would not procreate?

Some people maybe but not all.

So you're favoring selective antinatalism. Some types of antinatalism are not destructive or harmful. In fact, they can help humanity toward a better gene pool.

Selective antinatalism such as "a better gene pool" is likely a subject to morality.
On another side birth control regulated by law (ex. for common good) is probably morally acceptable.

I'm personally against any type of antinatalism, but if I had to choose it would have to be morally acceptable.

The problem is that a moral is about how we treat others and we consider them to apply to others, so the enacting of any moral, by definition, causes suffering. It either restrains someone from something they otherwise wanted to do, or it pushes someone to do something they otherwise would rather have not done. If it does neither, then it's not a moral, it's just 'whatever we wanted to do anyway'. Both of those consequences are a form of suffering (not being able to do something you want, having to do something you don't want). In fact they're basically the archetypes of suffering. So morality based solely on avoidance of suffering without any aggregation or weighing is simply not morality from the outset. — Isaac

I am not sure this is a definition of morality other than your definition. However, even if we are to judge it by those standards, certainly many people who would have wanted to procreate but didn't to prevent the potential person from suffering fits even this definition. In other situations the idea of preventing unnecessary suffering while also not violating someone's dignity can apply in a multitude of ways.. Wake a lifeguard (small violation) but don't force the lifeguard into a lifetime of lifeguarding school EVEN if you KNOW the best OUTCOME is this person being forced into teaching lifeguarding lessons for the rest of their life. There is something about caring TOO MUCH about greatest good that is nefarious in itself when balanced against individual dignity. An extreme example of this is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox.

Well, for comparison, in Buddhism, they say that there is suffering, that it has a cause, and that there is a way to undo that cause; they also say that suffering is something to understand. — baker

Yes and Schopenhauer also emphasized and agreed with the suffering that Buddhism discusses. However, Schopenhauer definitely identified more with the Buddhist monk ideals and not simply Buddhist-light (laymen). That is to say, true salvation comes from denying the will completely.

Of course with antinatalism, it's just helping along other who don't have to be saved in the first place. Yes, this counters Buddhism's need to defend procreation so that people can be born to be saved by enlightenment. It presupposes a metaphysics of reincarnation which most antinatalists don't believe.

I am not sure this is a definition of morality other than your definition. — schopenhauer1

What definition of morality are you working from?

the idea of preventing unnecessary suffering while also not violating someone's dignity can apply in a multitude of ways.. Wake a lifeguard (small violation) but don't force the lifeguard into a lifetime of lifeguarding school EVEN if you KNOW the best OUTCOME is this person being forced into teaching lifeguarding lessons for the rest of their life. There is something about caring TOO MUCH about greatest good that is nefarious in itself when balanced against individual dignity. — schopenhauer1

We've already agreed to this. I was just correcting the simplistic analysis presented. A morality cannot simply be about preventing harm, because a moral action sometimes involves harm, it would be a direct contradiction. Of course you could have a moral maxim about minimising harm, one where you consider the net harm (the harm of refraining from procreation is smaller than the harm from doing so). But then you have to accept that we're now measuring harms. Which raises questions about whose measurement criteria we use.

Odd that you should cite the mere addition paradox when you use it in reverse. One fewer averagely suffering person does not make the world a better place by exactly the same logic as one more averagely happy person does not make the world a better place. It's not about total quantity of happiness or suffering, it's about our relationships with others. We should be appalled to see people suffer beyond our expected amount and want to do everything we can to help (including suffering more minor harms ourselves, and expecting others to do so too).

We should be appalled to see people suffer beyond our expected amount and want to do everything we can to help (including suffering more minor harms ourselves, and expecting others to do so too). — Isaac

Agreed, however to bring more people into the world in order to do this seems like a vicious circle. We bring people into the world who will suffer, but they are here to help people alleviate suffering.

I have an answer... Don't bring more people into the suffering to have their suffering alleviated in the first place.

So certainly the amelioration process is more of a bandaid and not the reason people should be born, lest the vicious circle. So rather, you may have some other content as the goal.. Technology, world utopia, etc. Transhumanism for example is thinking we should be working towards some overcoming of suffering. I don't necessarily agree, but it is trying to give a reason to being born. When I hear things like "flourishing" or "character-building" as the reason to have more people, it also seems like a vicious circle and still overlooking the person for an agenda, thus violating the dignity principle. Character-building is just "good" is close to saying: "Any current necessary task needed for survival like hard-work is what is needed".. So it is overlooking dignity and it is making a fallacy that what is needed to survive is why we need to be born in the first place. In the future if robots did all the work, then what? So this is obviously just relative to a certain cultural lifestyle that someone (perhaps yourself) wants to see out of other people because that is the current way of things or the value of things for a long while historically.

Here's a thought experiment..

Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?

There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..

I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts.

I think that the actual problem is that you're externalizing things that are, by their nature, private, personal. Indeed, you can point out that professional philosophers, politicians etc. are doing so as well, and there is a whole culture of doing this. But the difference is that they're getting payed for their speculations, and you aren't. Amateur philosophy is fine, as long as it doesn't become dilettantism. And it becomes dilettantism when the person is in fact facing an issue in their personal life, but tries to present it to others as an objective, general social issue and insists on lenghty public discussion of it. By its nature, one's issue might very well be such, but unless one actually holds some position of power in society where one actually has some say in the matter, then one is assuming oneself to have more competence and more power than one actually has -- and therefore one will burn out in one's efforts, achieving nothing.

In other words, your own justification for not having children is your own thing. But if you care so much about the suffering of prospective as yet nonexisting humans, it would be wiser to start a political movement, or obtain some position of power in the government where you can actually influence people and make policy changes.

I think that the actual problem is that you're externalizing things that are, by their nature, private, personal. — baker

Yet procreation is not a private act. Quite the opposite, a whole other life is in play.

In other words, your own justification for not having children is your own thing. But if you care so much about the suffering of prospective as yet nonexisting humans, it would be wiser to start a political movement, or obtain some position of power in the government where you can actually influence people and make policy changes. — baker

This is the difference between ethics and politics. A majority of people nor a strongman has decided this is how things should be. And that is okay. Veganism should also not be forced but surely persuasion is fine.