Do you believe a human being can learn from suffering and improve their life due to the experience of suffering?
I would like to add 'without falling into any aspect of masochism.' to the above question

Sorry for my digression with shopenhauer1 from your OP but shopenhaur1 and DA671 had already established the digression and I am sure you can still bring us back to the OP if you feel there are still points about Global warming and chaos not yet aired.

Complex situations are rarely fixed by one-sided "solutions". I don't think the harms are good; I merely disagree with the assertion that preventing necessary (assuming that averting harm is also necessary), precious, significant, and evanescent yet eternally valuable positives is an acceptable idea. — DA671

I haven't done anything except for pointing out the inherent flaw with idea that there needs to be a deprivation for the creation of a positive life to be necessary, but it's somehow logical to suggest that the lack of harm is good sans an actual benefit, because the truth is it simply doesn't seem to be the case. There's no need to drag this on infinitely, because it's also quite easy to understand that one resolves to create a benefit in one case that one could consider akin to a gift they couldn't solicit themselves. In one instance, the state of affairs changes to one having good, and in the other, there is no value. Once again, the lack of a "POV" before existing is precisely why I don't think that existence can be inherently better/worse for a person. But even if it is and all that matters is the perspective and experiences of the actual person, the logical position seems to be to understand that the creation of a benefit matters just lile the prevention of damage. You cannot apply double standards and then accuse others of making a "sleight of hand" when being questioned for a lack of consistency, for doing so is probably a much accurate representation of a sleight of hand. — DA671

Let's look at why the case is so strong for not creating collateral damage though.
On one side of the ledger, collateral damage is created.
On the other side of the ledger, no collateral damage is created.

One cannot say here, some person is be affected negatively for not being born. Because as I think you are trying to acknowledge, there is no child's POV that is negatively affected.

The collateral damage is purely experienced once a child is created. Once this state of affairs of "born" has happened, harms become entailed with life as it normally goes.

So in one case there is no state of affairs of collateral damage. On the other side there is. You now cannot go back and say, "But there are no state of affairs of no happiness".. Because that is not collateral damage to a child's POV. In other words, there literally is no losing side to not creating someone. There will always be a collateral (losing) aspect to creating someone. This is based on states of affairs.

So the question becomes.. If the default state is no collateral damage, what justifies creating a state of affairs where by collateral damage is incurred, but doesn't have to incur onto someone else?

You say, happiness is a pass to initiate the process. I am saying that there is nothing that justifies creating unnecessary collateral damage as a state of affairs in the world for someone else.

Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer. — universeness

Of course there is! For sure. I think around virtually every star there is a planet with life on it. Even people, why not. Seems that the solar system situation is a common one.Teeming with life, she is!

I think my case is adequately strong. On one side, there are goods, on the other side, there aren't any.

Nobody is positively affected by the lack of harm in nonexistence either. And no, I am not focusing on nonexistent beings, only pointing out the obvious before moving on.

I am not going to "go back" on anything because I don't need to. Although I do think that a "loss" requires an actual worsening, but that wouldn't be pertinent here. The fact is that nobody is benefitting in one state of affairs either, but they do experience happiness when they do exist, so it has significance from their POV, and there's no need for a deprivation for that to be important.

You obviously disagree, and mistakenly so, in my view, but I believe that if it is preferable to prevent potential harm, it is also justifiable to create valuable experiences that would be gained by people when they exist.

You say that the positives do not justify procreation, but I disagree, because I do think that the intricately ethereal and indescribable goods do justify creating people.

I think my case is adequately strong. On one side, there are goods, on the other side, there aren't any. — DA671

Goods that are not deprived to anyone matter how, exactly? It's just switching the POV as if there is someone, but there is not. Again, no collateral damage to anyone here, so I don't see the problem.

Nobody is positively affected by the lack of harm in nonexistence either. And no, I am not focusing on nonexistent beings, only pointing out the obvious before moving on. — DA671

Correct, but that is not what I stated. I did not say.. "There exists someone for whom lack of harm is being experienced". Rather I simply stated, that "Collateral damage, as a state of affairs, is not being created". That is to say, there is no downside going on.

The fact is that nobody is benefitting in one state of affairs either, but they do experience happiness when they do exist, so it has significance from their POV, and there's no need for a deprivation for that to be important. — DA671

Right, but doesn't answer my question of

You say, happiness is a pass to initiate the process. I am saying that there is nothing that justifies creating unnecessary collateral damage as a state of affairs in the world for someone else. — schopenhauer1

You obviously disagree, and mistakenly so, in my view, but I believe that if it is preferable to prevent potential harm, it is also justifiable to create valuable experiences that would be gained by people when they exist. — DA671

This, I can agree with.

You say that the positives do not justify procreation, but I disagree, because I do think that the intricately ethereal and indescribable goods do justify creating people. — DA671

So initiating unnecessary harm is fine with you as long as happiness exists. But why is creating collateral damage ever good, when it does not have to happen?
There is no person that needs saving...
There is no person "missing out"

Giving someone a "chance" to be happy, but knowing this creates harm, is still presuming that it is okay to create harm for someone else wholesale, and inescapable, and that this is justified because positive aspects also exist. How is this not paternalistic, arrogant, and dangerous? Why is messing with other people's existential status something that is presumed "good to do" onto someone else? "This is good for you..." and "you'll thank me later" might be subtle, but they are excuses we use to cause unnecessary harm. At the end of the day, if you think causing unnecessary harm to others is justified because you know "happiness must be had by someone" then I cannot persuade you otherwise other than, it is wrong to use people by causing them burdens for your notion of what is good for them, the world, the universe, (which actually doesn't make sense either) etc.

So when someone doesn't like aspects of life, what will you do? Say, "Ship up or ship out?" "Go kill yourself", "That's life", "That's just the way it is"? Great, real empathy there. You have created the very situation for which you are gaslighting them. "Fuck you.. enjoy what is here, or go kill yourself! I created you so you can "enjoy" what I deem must be enjoyed.. Family values... You laughed as a child, why are you resenting X right now?? How dare you question your birth?? Question the system, question this or that, but never question existence!!?? It's a"gift" yet you feel negative X right now.. Ha ha ha ha.. paternalistic, arrogant.. gas lighting....

You can't create a situation whereby the negatives come about, and then tell the person to "fuck off" if they question the very negatives that were brought about.

:grin: I love your reply Raymond and feel the same way. I also love Billy Braggs music and have his 'The Essential collection.' I love songs like 'there is power in a union' and 'all you fascists are bound to lose' etc

If you could press a button now, and all human life would cease to exist, without causing any suffering to anyone, including you. Instant removal from the Universe. Would you press?

If we go back to the time of the dinosaurs and consider the longevity of time they had on the Earth, compared to humans. Was there any suffering during those times, when there were no humans around?

Is it only human suffering you are concerned about?

Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer. — universeness

No I would not press a button. Ethics is at the individual level. People's consent must be obtained.. If not for an individual, then ethics means nothing but aggregate averaged out utility.. It is at the individual level of POV that experience is carried out and it is there where ethics must be considered.

I am primarily concerned of human suffering simply because we are deliberative beings that can make choices, but I do care about animal welfare, yes.

Sure I'll say there might be.. And if there is.. if they can deliberate like we can, they can make the same AN choices, if there is "suffering" which certainly there is for them as us.

Do you believe a human being can learn from suffering and improve their life due to the experience of suffering? — universeness

Humans can learn from suffering. However, to create suffering so people can learn is wrong I think.

Harms that don't lead to a benefit for an actual person do not matter either. This is another straw man anyway, because I wasn't talking about nonexistent people. If the harms would negatively matter for people once they exist which necessitates preventing them, I believe that it can also be good to create happiness that would be cherished once people exist.

If that's the case, then I am also not taking about nonexistent beings beings deprived of goods. The cardinal consideration is that benefit is not being created in one state of affairs, and that's not an upside.

It does, because happiness (a desirable experience) that matters more for innumerable people despite harms (undesirable sensations) does justify, in my opinion, the formation of life.

I was using valuable experiences synonymously with people to compare with damage.

Once again, this is a only a misunderstanding/double standard. I never said that damage is good; I only said that creating the benefits is good, and my contention is that it can be justifiable to create them, considering that many people do go on to find immense meaning in their lives. And if there's no need for a feeling of satisfaction/relief for the prevention of damage to be good, there's also no need for a feeling of "missing out" or a need for being "saved" from the creation of happiness to be good once the person exists.

It's much more paternalistic, harmful, and hubristic to suggest that one should not create ineffably valuable experiences due to the risk of damage (since I do not think that a harm always negates the worth a person sees in their life). I simply don't think that creating precious and hugely significant joys (many of which exist in spite of harms) is wrong due to the possibility of harms. Another misunderstanding, since there's nobody whose welfare is being "messed up" by merely being created. And if the person does find the joys to be more potent than the harms, which is the case in many situations, then they don't need anybody else to tell them what is good for them. My inability to find value in life does not justify negating all that matters. Also, I have already mentioned that there is a difference between causing harms for existing people (which would only be ethical if there is a greater good for the person), and the creation of a good life, wherein if the prevention of harms is necessary, then so is the genesis of happiness. At the end of the day, if one chooses to believe a flawed view that suggests that not bestowing an amazing good onto a person who cannot ask for it themselves before existing is acceptable due to their own narrow viewpoint, that's their prerogative. Nevertheless, it wouldn't change the fact that their idea of the creation of good being unnecessary remains flawed and incorrect, and straw men arguments about good for the universe aren't going to change that. A worldview that results in a total devaluation of a crucial aspect of reality deserves opprobrium, in my view. One's arbitrary notions are certainly not a valid excuse for a worldview that irrationally and patronisingly decides that the creation of truly majestic joys isn't necessarily valuable for those who would exist and appreciate them.

Life is often a "gift", but I never claimed it always is or needs to be seen that way (though I do think that it's necessarily better for a person if they can). I do not believe any of what you said there, and I am sorry if any of my comments made you think that this is the case. As I have said before, I do think that people need to think about procreation more carefully, especially in situations when they know that the likelihood of the child having a good life is low. Additionally, I don't think that it's ethical to force people to keep enduring a valueless existence that they cannot find any joy in for the sake of defending some strange idea of the "sanctity of life". This is why I support the availability of a liberal right to die along with careful use of technology in order to remove/reduce suffering as much as possible. All the harms are extremely tragic, and I do not think that my words alone are sufficient to change that fact. Yet, there is also another side of the coin. There are those who truly perceive their lives to be a gift. For them, the so-called "little" things act as a source of indubitable value. Things such as the love of a family member, or the achievement of a dream such as being able to become the first educated person in a family (a phenomenon that's still common in the country I come from) can inundate people with a happiness that's truly immeasurable. I just don't think that one should loom at those experiences and decide that it's acceptable for those goods to never exist again, even if those people themselves continue to cherish their lives. I don't think that genuine empathy entails ignoring the positives. Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on.

No, such people deserve happiness and care. I don't think that irredeemable harms are logically inextricable for happiness, though it's true that there are negatives that do exist. I think that creating happiness and then sincerely caring about a person who would love their life is trivial; it possesses priceless worth. Thank you for this enlightening discussion, and I hope that you have a good week ahead!

For you Scotsman!

No I would not press a button. Ethics is at the individual level. People's consent must be obtained.. If not for an individual, then ethics means nothing but aggregate averaged out utility.. It is at the individual level of POV that experience is carried out and it is there where ethics must be considered. — schopenhauer1

Well we have that anyway, at least we don't have to keep you away from any big red buttons, labeled
'To end all life in the universe, just press here'........ :wink:

I am primarily concerned of human suffering simply because we are deliberative beings that can make choices, but I do care about animal welfare, yes. — schopenhauer1

Many would argue that there are many other 'deliberative' non-human creatures on Earth.
From orangutans to dolphins. Okay, perhaps not as cognisant as humans but should antinatalism apply to them due to 'suffering' or do they have to be fully able, to be asked for and confirm consent in some way?

Sure I'll say there might be.. And if there is.. if they can deliberate like we can, they can make the same AN choices, if there is "suffering" which certainly there is for them as us — schopenhauer1

Well I hope you are not one of the first representatives from the human race to encounter aliens from another planet. How long would it be before you said:

'Welcome to Earth.....but what a shame you were ever born! Have you suffered today?'

I don't intend to mock but I freely admit to finding antinatalism, a ridiculous viewpoint.

So, you are in a sense, 'over-rulling' evolution. The around14 billion years it took to reach the stage where the universe was able to produce lifeforms such as humans was a complete waste of 'time'? due to the 'suffering' aspect of existence. Is that your logical position?

I know you recognise that this is a very small minority view (or at least a minority view). Would you also call it an extreme view?

Humans can learn from suffering. However, to create suffering so people can learn is wrong I think — schopenhauer1

But your posit is that birth is the beginning of suffering and you give that priority over all other human states and actually think that the state DEAD is better. Would this be an accurate statement?

[Pressed too early...

Thanks Earther!!

If the harms would negatively matter for people once they exist which necessitates preventing them, I believe that it can also be good to create happiness that would be cherished once people exist. — DA671

So you would create harm for this reason?

If that's the case, then I am also not taking about nonexistent beings beings deprived of goods. The cardinal consideration is that benefit is not being created in one state of affairs, and that's not an upside. — DA671

But then, who cares, literally? All that matters is you didn't create unnecessary harm. No one literally cares there is no upside (except the projections of you).

It does, because happiness (a desirable experience) that matters more for innumerable people despite harms (undesirable sensations) does justify, in my opinion, the formation of life. — DA671

Ah, yes, the "people" speak to DA671 and DA671 speaks to the world! Paterinalistic arrogance. At least in my philosophy I presume to do nothing for no one.. Presuming brings with it baggage for others.. I would never want to do that to people.
"You Matthew Harrison Brady.. you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world!... Well meet the prophet from Nebraska!" :lol: God speaks to Brady.. and Brady tells the world!! Brady, Brady, Brady Oh mighty!"

It's much more paternalistic, harmful, and hubristic to suggest that one should not create ineffably valuable experiences due to the risk of damage (since I do not think that a harm always negates the worth a person sees in their life). — DA671

Eh this has no force. No one is doing anything to anyone, as we have discussed. On the procreation side, something is being done.. On the not procreation side, It is messing with no one.. so no.

simply don't think that creating precious and hugely significant joys (many of which exist in spite of harms) is wrong due to the possibility of harms. — DA671

Yes presume on.. you deem it necessary, therefore others should suffer because it is "good for them".

A worldview that results in a total devaluation of a crucial aspect of reality deserves opprobrium, in my view. One's arbitrary notions are certainly not a valid excuse for a worldview that irrationally and patronisingly decides that the creation of truly majestic joys isn't necessarily valuable for those who would exist and appreciate them. — DA671

All your own projections that burden others at the end of the day.

specially in situations when they know that the likelihood of the child having a good life is low. — DA671

I just think being the "evaluator" of another's life's burdens is again, paternalistic, arrogant, and a sortof god-complex.. Don't burden others, PERIOD. Please don't give pedantic and sentimentalist laughter of children, the poetic sense of the artist, and the fights of fancy of a mountainclimber, the majesty of science, the wonders of technology bullshit. You are burdening others, messing with them.. YOU are doing that (you being the procreator).

This is why I support the availability of a liberal right to die along with careful use of technology in order to remove/reduce suffering as much as possible. All the harms are extremely tragic, and I do not think that my words alone are sufficient to change that fact. Yet, there is also another side of the coin. There are those who truly perceive their lives to be a gift. For them, the so-called "little" things act as a source of indubitable value. Things such as the love of a family member, or the achievement of a dream such as being able to become the first educated person in a family (a phenomenon that's still common in the country I come from) can inundate people with a happiness that's truly immeasurable. I just don't think that one should loom at those experiences and decide that it's acceptable for those goods to never exist again, even if those people themselves continue to cherish their lives. I don't think that genuine empathy entails ignoring the positives. Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on. — DA671

Didn't even read this and I predicted it above :lol: Spare the sentimentality. It excuses nothing. Burdening people is burdening people, despite what you might want them to possibly experience otherweise from the burdens you are burdening them with.

Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on. — DA671

I mean, this idea that if you don't like the situation, go kill yourself isn't callous? Just don't put people in that situation. Period. When is that ever good to do? Break some eggs to make an omelet thinking? No one suffers not being born. I don't hear the whispering cries of the nothing nobodies in the nothing noths region of nothingdom.

No, such people deserve happiness and care. I don't think that irredeemable harms are logically inextricable for happiness, though it's true that there are negatives that do exist. I think that creating happiness and then sincerely caring about a person who would love their life is trivial; it possesses priceless worth. Thank you for this enlightening discussion, and I hope that you have a good week ahead! — DA671

I get that you think happiness is worth making people suffer (collateral damage). Fuck em all right? Cause happiness.

Creating the good does matter.

There's also nobody who cares that there isn't a downside, except from your own projections. What also matters is that there isn't any joy, which you don't seem to understand.

I am sure the "people" spoke to Schopenhauer1 and explained to them how they find happiness to be a baggage they don't wish to possess. Once again, shallow and patronising. I am not obliged to follow the words of the prophets of doom and unremitting pessimism.

It does. What you're essentially saying is: if one had to capability to recreate a person who truly loved his life and wished to experience those goods again, their wish would be irrelevant because preventing the harms matters more by virtue of paternalistic judgement that decides what matters more for other sentient beings. Also, to digress a bit, I don't think that not creating a person is respecting their dignity, since they don't have an interest in the void that has been taken into account.

Paternalism (Google definition): "the policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest."
I never knew that there were emancipated souls floating around in the void whose "freedom" was being "restricted" against interests that don't even exist. And if one is talking about a "potential" interest to not suffer, then there is also a need to take the potential interest of happiness into account, which is why creating the positives could be deemed an act of beneficence that lends dignifies a person by giving them a good they couldn't ask for themselves. You would, of course, still focus on the negatives. But I am afraid that your viewpoint is not representative of the lives of countless individuals who do love their lives despite the hardships they face.

You're the one who presumes that your own perspective justifies ending all happiness, which isn't ethical. You deem one thing to be "necessary" whilst ignoring the other because of ... reasons.

At the end of the day your pessimistic projections prevent the existence of cherished experiences.

It's tragic that the effulgent smiles of people are "sentimentalism" for you, but it's understandable, considering that you haven't tried to look at things from a wider viewpoint. Good things are considered by many to be gift that outweighs the potential burdens, yet you would paternalistically judge that the existence of harms would justify not creating any good life. Bestowing a good by procreating can certainly be good and is the opposite of "messing" with anybody.

Truth is intuitive, yet it's tragic that people reject it ;) Once again, if you could move past your projections and attempts of being the judge of all experiences, you would realise that things that one considers to be a blessing isn't a burden for them. Then again, pessimistic sentimentalism can be difficult to overcome in some cases.

Once again talking about nonexistent whispers and yet claiming that what matters is existence. As I have already said before, if it can be good to prevent suffering even though there's nobody in the void who's happy about the idea of not existing, then it can also be good to create happiness. I don't think that it's callous, because it does give people a way out if things do get bad. I didn't say that it's easy or preferable, but I believe that it's still something that many people desire and is probably a better alternative than preventing all happiness. Not making any omelette because a few might break isn't the epitome of wisdom.

There's nothing about suffering that deserves to be ignored. But as I mentioned before, there are situations that do not have "easy" solutions. I can see that you wish to eradicate the potential for all ineffably valuable experiences due to your inability to see beyond the harms.

Many would argue that there are many other 'deliberative' non-human creatures on Earth.
From orangutans to dolphins. Okay, perhaps not as cognisant as humans but should antinatalism apply to them due to 'suffering' or do they have to be fully able, to be asked for and confirm consent in some way? — universeness

Yes, that.

Well I hope you are not one of the first representatives from the human race to encounter aliens from another planet. How long would it be before you said:

'Welcome to Earth.....but what a shame you were ever born! Have you suffered today?' — universeness

Ironically.. perhaps aliens don't "exist" because they already figured out antinatalism a long time ago :wink:

So, you are in a sense, 'over-rulling' evolution. The around14 billion years it took to reach the stage where the universe was able to produce lifeforms such as humans was a complete waste of 'time'? due to the 'suffering' aspect of existence. Is that your logical position? — universeness

I have no duty to a natural mechanism like evolution, only to people, and not creating their unnecessary suffering.

I know you recognise that this is a very small minority view (or at least a minority view). Would you also call it an extreme view? — universeness

I think it seems extreme, but so do a lot of new ideas.

But your posit is that birth is the beginning of suffering and you give that priority over all other human states and actually think that the state DEAD is better. Would this be an accurate statement? — universeness

That's harder to say.. You can still believe life was not worth starting but also believe that once begun, since humans have connections to their own endeavors, interests, etc. it may be worse off to be dead. It doesn't mean that one equals the other.. Birth and death are changes of states of existence, but the decision to procreate another and a decision to kill yourself are not equivalent decisions. It can be said, that to put someone into suffering is bad, and to put someone in a bind that death is part of their equation of living, is also a part of this.

Ironically.. perhaps aliens don't "exist" because they already figured out antinatalism a long time ago — schopenhauer1

I always accept conjecture as a 'fair' position as it allows opinion and its part of my own epistemology even if we all recognise it, as a mere beginning, in a quest for 'knowledge.'

I have no duty to a natural mechanism like evolution, only to people, and not creating their unnecessary suffering. — schopenhauer1

Well you may reject such a duty but that process is why you are here. Perhaps based on your viewpoints, it's that fact, that upsets you. I accept my suffering as a 'teacher.' and I reject your unhelpful solution to my suffering. I wish to alleviate excessive suffering but my cure is not the equivalent of killing the patient or disallowing their birth in the first place.

Obviously and as I am rational, I withhold my consent to AN, for my lifetime. As long as anyone, with the same view as me, lives, AN can never be realised, in its ultimate goal, unless our species is wiped out for other reasons, because consent is required. This encourages others of your ilk, perhaps a more extreme flavor to consider removing the need for consent. Do you have a duty to stop such people?

I think it seems extreme, but so do a lot of new ideas — schopenhauer1

This is not a new idea, its a very boring, very old idea that was part of early greek musings and was posited within the words 'better not to have been born in the first place.' It was rejected by the majority of rational thinkers then (The proof being that we are still here with an ever-increasing population since the times of Ancient Greece) and it will continue to be utterly rejected by the majority of rational thinkers now.

That's harder to say.. You can still believe life was not worth starting but also believe that once begun, since humans have connections to their own endeavors, interests, etc. it may be worse off to be dead. It doesn't mean that one equals the other.. Birth and death are changes of states of existence, but the decision to procreate another and a decision to kill yourself are not equivalent decisions. It can be said, that to put someone into suffering is bad, and to put someone in a bind that death is part of their equation of living, is also a part of this — schopenhauer1

Ok, if that's the level of your Antinatalism then you are harmless. The result will be that you will have no kids. I have no kids and will not have any because I am now too old to do the nurture part as effectively as I think it needs to be done. So we are a gentle assist to the current global over-population problem.
I would just like confirmation from you that any time an Antinatalist group or individual raises its head and declares that consent is no longer required, that you will be helping me and folks like DA671,
stop them from achieving their goal

Yes I see, you think that by switching it to pessimism that this solves your problems. But it doesn't because of the initial asymmetry.. That is exactly the point. They cannot be switched out as you are doing without an error of sorts.

In the case of no person, I am meddling in no person's life. There is nothing that is getting burdened.
In the case of a person born, you are meddling in a person's life. There is someone now, that is burdened.

Thus all the things you mentioned by reversing things there are not pertinent. There is no paternalism, for example in my state of affairs.. No ONE is being paternally treated. Once someone is born (your scenario), now, paternalism takes affect. There is no one in the void in being not born, but once born, there is someone who can be burdened with.

Obviously and as I am rational, I withhold my consent to AN, for my lifetime. As long as anyone, with the same view as me, lives, AN can never be realised, in its ultimate goal, unless our species is wiped out for other reasons, because consent is required. This encourages others of your ilk, perhaps a more extreme flavor to consider removing the need for consent. Do you have a duty to stop such people? — universeness

Of course.. You realize there are nutballs in every conceivable philosophical-ideological-political group/camp/movement right?

This is not a new idea, its a very boring, very old idea that was part of early greek musings and was posited within the words 'better not to have been born in the first place.' It was rejected by the majority of rational thinkers then (The proof being that we are still here with an ever-increasing population since the times of Ancient Greece) and it will continue to be utterly rejected by the majority of rational thinkers now. — universeness

I'll consent to the idea that philosophical pessimism has been around forever.. and variations of antinatalism.. But antinatalism as a recognized thing is relatively new.. However, your answer for why it's wrong.. "People still procreate" is either the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy or the "naturalistic" fallacy. Take your pick.

Ok, if that's the level of your Antinatalism then you are harmless. The result will be that you will have no kids. I have no kids and will not have any because I am now too old to do the nurture part as effectively as I think it needs to be done. So we are a gentle assist to the current global over-population problem. — universeness

:up:

I would just like confirmation from you that any time an Antinatalist group or individual raises its head and declares that consent is no longer required, that you will be helping me and folks like DA671,
stop them from achieving their goal — universeness

Sure. It would be going against the very principles of antinatalism itself to even do this.. I don't believe in this weird abstract utilitarian way of thinking where people are just to be seen as how they can aggregate this or that outcome.

Animals in zoo's tend to refrain from procreation. This also is AN. They feel that they are put in prison and don't want their children to be in one too.

An antinatalist seems to have other motives though. They think their children will become part of the problem, while animals think their children will be a victim of it.

An antinatalist seems to have other motives though. They think their children will become part of the problem, while animals think their children will be a victim of it. — Raymond

Actually that is a debate in antinatalist communities.. You are describing what is called "misanthropic" and "philanthropic" versions of antinatalism.

There's no "initial asymmetry" to begin with, so repeatedly mentioning the fact that the absence of the good isn't ethical if the prevention of the bad is ethical would be frivolous.

In the case of a person, one is bestowing a good that cannot be solicited by the person themselves. In the other case, no positive exists. If one chooses to view an act of beneficence (if it's a "burden" to create harm) as "meddling", then that's their choice. But this wouldn't change the fact that the positives are quite important.

As I said, there is a certain degree of paternalism in telling a happy person who would wish to experience the good again that their positives are not adequate and do not deserve to be created for the sake of preventing harm. But if it's "paternalistic" to create a burden (even though there isn't any free state of deep interest prior to existing), it can be a genuine gift to have a truly valuable life that one can cherish only once they exist and cannot ask for it otherwise. Thus, your double standards remain unjustifiable. If nobody is born, nobody can benefit, but this isn't the case if people do exist. Of course, you believe that they don't matter (incorrectly, in my view), but I disagree, because the priceless joys will always be pertinent (along with the harms).

There's no "initial asymmetry" to begin with, so repeatedly mentioning the fact that the absence of the good isn't ethical if the prevention of the bad is ethical would be frivolous. — DA671

Ah yes, so when I slowed this down and you accepted the terms, you didn't accept them.. So let's go back to square one...

In the case of a person, one is bestowing a good that cannot be solicited by the person themselves. — DA671

There is no "themselves".. There is no ONE. Asymmetry, see?

If one chooses to view an act of beneficence (if it's a "burden" to create harm) as "meddling", then that's their choice. But this wouldn't change the fact that the positives are quite important. — DA671

Positives not had by anyone, are important to no one. Positives had at the expense of burdening someone is indeed what this is all about. Whether this is good/just/ethical/proper to do so.

There's no "square one", because my case has always been for a logically consistent view that doesn't devalue the positives. I had not accepted any double standards about the creation of happiness not being important yet the prevention of harms being so.

There's also no person who's being forcibly taken away from a blissful and free void into a worse state of affairs. Yet, if it's still a burden/harm for the negative to exist, the good can also be perceived as a gift/benefit.

Negatives not had by anybody also don't matter, by the same token. However, preventing the possibility of actual goods for the sake of preventing harms does matter, and I do not think that averting the opportunity of innumerable loved experiences is ethical/good/just/proper to do.

There's no "square one", because my case has always been for a logically consistent view that doesn't devalue the positives. — DA671

Get off your pony..

There's also no person who's being forcibly taken away from a blissful and free void into a worse state of affairs. Yet, if it's still a burden/harm for the negative to exist, the good can also be perceived as a gift/benefit. — DA671

Here you are again, doing a switcharoo.. It's from the POV of the person causing the burden prior to someone's actual birth.

Negatives not had by anybody also don't matter, by the same token. — DA671

Correct.

However, preventing the possibility of actual goods for the sake of preventing harms does matter, and I do not think that averting the opportunity of innumerable loved experiences is ethical/good/just/proper to do. — DA671

No it does not matter. You were right the first time.

I wouldn't wish to step into unreasonable waters ;)

There's no "switcharoo" happening. You have unjustifiable double standards when it comes to happiness and suffering. If existing is a "burden" from the POV of an existing person even though there wasn't any prior interest in an alternative state of affairs, a good life can also be perceived as a gift, irrespective of whether or not some nonexistent person needed it. As for existing people's view, you obviously believe that the creating the good is not acceptable due to the negatives, but I disagree, because I do think that the creating numerous individuals who do find joy in their lives despite suffering can be ethical.

I was referring to their absence. Even if the lack of a bad is neutral (and not good), the creation of the joys is preferable to a valueless state of affairs. As I said before, if it can be unethical to form the damages, it can also be ineffably good to create happiness.

That's a mischaracterisation, since I meant that they do not matter only if the lack of the harms doesn't have any worth. But no, they do matter if the absence of the harms matters. I do think that I am probably right about antinatalism being a logically untenable position ;)

Based on your last comment to me, I am left with one of my own strongly held convictions that as long as someone is not inciting violence then:

"I might not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life, your right to say it"

Thank you for your honest responses to my comments.

Agreed. I believe that S1 is a truly intelligent and compassionate person who has genuinely good intentions, and even though I disagree with them on a particular issue, I believe that the world needs more empathetic people like them.

:up:

Sorry for my digression with shopenhauer1 from your OP but shopenhaur1 and DA671 had already established the digression and I am sure you can still bring us back to the OP if you feel there are still points about Global warming and chaos not yet aired. — universeness

I am good with what you are doing. I can see the different discussions happening in the thread and I think we need to just go with the flow. In the past I tried to control MY threads. :lol: That ruins everything and I am seeing how important creativity and relationships are.