I don't need absolute perfection for life to be worthwhile, — DA671

A child dying of starvation, an infant succumbing to a painful infection, a person being (slowly) tortured to death, a person who's unemployed and homeless because he didn't have it in him to make the cut, basically people enduring the most horrrific of circumstances aren't looking for perfection! They're simply asking/begging for the bare necessities that make life enjoyable tolerable!

Your distorted view of reality is showing with every word that you write. I don't blame you though. Our opinions are shaped by our circumstances. You'll come around in time; it isn't a question of if, only when!

pessimistic — DA671

Realistic is the apt word/concept here!

As I said, let your children and children's children be the judge. We probably won't live long enough to see our descendants suffer in the most horrible of ways, but mark my words, this will come to pass.

A child lovingly hugging his mother in an attempt to express the indescribable beauty of love is not tolerance. A soldier feeling immense pride and honour despite of facing pain is transcending mere "tolerance". Innumerable people helping others and finding genuine happiness in it is more significant than one might think. I am not denying that the harms aren't extremely problematic, however. Part of the problem is that most people these days wish to chase superficial pleasures instead of finding deeper contentment, which is easier to find if everybody benefits, not just a few. If the world had more empathetic people like you, we could have resolved our problems sooner. Still, hope remains.

We all are distorted to various degrees, my friend. Some mitigate that, others exacerbate it. Even though you have engaged with one side of reality quite well, you have grossly neglected the other. That ignorance continues to shape and reflect your words. Some people live their entire lives living a lie, but I hope your destiny is different.

Pseudo-realism ;)

"We" is a broad term :p We shall certainly see. I have marked your words, but I think that the only use they would have (ultimately, not immediately) would be as an example of how wrong some worldviews and predictions can get. Until then, please have a good life ahead!

Let our children and children's children be the judge. I secretly wish I'm wrong, but the givens are such that any such optimism is ridiculous!

By the way, no instance of happiness you give can make the case for you for the simple reason that happiness is dukkha too.

It always has been. After all, the achievement of the "ridiculous" is an excellent way to reach the realm of ecstasy. :)
We will, mate. I am not an oracle, but I would be far more worried if there weren't people like you who cared. That's why I said before, thanks for "everything".

Also, sukha is not dukkha.

We will, mate — DA671

:ok: Good luck!

Same to you! :D

"A child dying of starvation"
If you were there perhaps you could have fed the child. I take that you do a lot of charity work and contribute to food banks and such, regularly.

"an infant succumbing to a painful infection"
Perhaps you could have provided the medication to save this infant or you could have phoned a medical professional or held them and whispered beautiful words into their ear or sang them a beautiful, peaceful song as they died. Had you been able to, would you have done so?

"A person being (slowly) tortured to death."
Maybe you could have killed the torturer or maybe the victim had slaughtered the person's family earlier and this was an act of vengeance. waddyafink?

"A person who's unemployed and homeless because he didn't have it in him to make the cut"
Maybe you could give this person a job or help him find one.
Maybe this person was a fraudster, caught, jailed, released, now rejected by friends, family, now on the street homeless, Do you feel still feel empathy or pity for this fraudster or would you 'offer another chance?'

"Basically people enduring the most horrrific of circumstances aren't looking for perfection! They're simply asking/begging for the bare necessities that make life enjoyable tolerable!"
Then why don't you do what you can to help them?
Instead, you sit inside your misanthropic bubble wearing your badge with 'I also suffer, boo hoo for me' on the label. But you wear it with pride. You like your christ crucified stance.
Your internal watcher is trying to tell you, you are too obsessed with the concept of suffering.
DA671 has gone to great lengths to do the same.
If you won't listen and learn then let us optimists get on with trying to 'intervene' on the behalf of the sufferers while you continue to bleat about suffering whilst doing nothing to help.
Why don't you think about becoming part of the solution instead of remaining part of the problem?

"Your distorted view of reality is showing with every word that you write. I don't blame you though. Our opinions are shaped by our circumstances. You'll come around in time; it isn't a question of if, only when!

I find predictors of doom boring and somewhat amusing.
A sandwich board with 'The end is nigh' on it is their usual fate or they join something like the 'rapture' crowd.

My replies to DA671 apply to you. There's no point in repeating myself.

Happiness is either an illusion or, no matter what, is still dukkha (unsatisfactory). With that all arguments that depend on happiness as also a part of life (natalism one of 'em) go out the window.

Just to inject something new to my thesis: the overall trend in science (biology/medicine) hasn't been to increase pleasure, but to reduce pain. To drive home the point, have you checked the sales figures for painkillers? I'm certain the relevant statistics aren't going to help natalists make their case.

Just from some data available online:

Markets

Pleasure (not exactly, but let's give natalists something to work on)
Iillicit drugs: $32 billion

Fun fact: Morphine (highly addictive) is an analgesic.

Pain
Antidepressants: $20 billion
Analgesics: $25 billion

In here for the daily reminder that the reality of A does not automatically make B unreal. Dissatisfaction is, by definition, not true satisfaction. However, profound happiness does exist, and one can cherish it in multiple ways, from simple pleasures such as consumption to more complex ones such as love and achievement of knowledge. I would not be making the claim that the reality of happiness makes suffering unreal, however, since I do think that a comprehensive approach is preferable.

Some people do take substances that make them happier, though it might not be good to use those things which lead to a loss of happiness in the long run. However, removing pain does not mean that one does not experience happiness. Part of the reason why one seeks to avoid pain is that they wish to return to the state that is permeated with more fulfillment. The sales do show that there is an increase in our need to be happy than there was before ;)

Edit: Although I do not consider the usage of drugs to be the pinnacle of happiness (which is real), here are a few interesting statistics:

"In 2007 and 2008, cocaine was used by some 16 to 17 million people worldwide, similar to the number of global opiate users. North America accounted for more than 40 per cent of global cocaine consumption (the total was estimated at around 470 tons), while the 27 European Union and four European Free Trade Association countries accounted for more than a quarter of total consumption. These two regions account for more than 80 per cent of the total value of the global cocaine market, which was estimated at $88 billion in 2008."

Source: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/drug-trafficking/index.html

"According to the report published by Allied Market Research,the antidepressant drugs market accounted for $13.75 billion in 2016, and is estimated to reach $15.98 billion by 2023, registering a CAGR of 2.1% from 2017 to 2023."

Source: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/06/2074356/0/en/Antidepressant-Drugs-Market-to-Grow-Valuation-of-15-98-Billion-by-2023.html

"The global analgesics market reached a value of US$ 48.2 Billion in 2020."

Source: https://www.imarcgroup.com/analgesics-market#:~:text=Market%20Overview%3A,moderate%20growth%20during%202021%2D2026.

Therefore, the value of the "pleasure" (using just a single substance) appears to be greater. However, I do not think that one requires drugs in order to appreciate a valuable relationship or enjoy the beauty of art. I think it would be extremely difficult to put a monetary value on the effulgent smile a child has on his face when his mother after a long time. It would also be pertinent to mention that it could be possible that one is throwing away the opportunity to recognise happiness either by dismissing it as an "illusion" or by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that sucks all joy from one's life, which will lead one to an inexorable descent into an irrational position. One does do many things in order to prevent/reduce harm and regain contentment.

The upshot of all this is that universal antinatalism remains indefensible. I have already expressed my other views, so I shall refrain from repeating them here. Hope everybody here has an amazing day!

I will look out for your sandwich board....

I support your general views on this issue.
I leave Agent Smith to fight his own internal battle between antinatalism and masochism instead of his attempt to subject his own internal psychology to the scrutiny of others here.

I've been staying in a hotel since the 19th of Jan 2022 (just basic services, nothing fancy). So, yesterday I was walking past this room (501) and I heard voices and music through the door. The door opened ever so slightly and I managed to catch a glimpse of what was going on. A small/mini party; no, not a Boris Johnson situation, so don't get your hackles up). I simply walked past. That was that.

Around 20 minutes later, I caught the elevator and took it to the ground floor, hungry. To my surprise I saw the man in room 501 having an argument, a friendly one with the receptionist. "You were making too much noise, sir" said the girl receptionist. "Last time we had the police in here because of loud music" she continued. The man from 501 took it well, said it won't happen next time, but he made it a point to convey his side of the story - the music and the conversation wasn't loud.

Now, I know what "loud" means and the guests in 501 definitely did nothing that was loud (enough) to deserve a reprimand.

Music are certainly be too loud, just as it can be pleasant.

I think I stayed in room 501 once, but thankfully we didn't have any noisy neighbours then :p

Better a false diamond than no diamond. I completely forgot how human minds work. Better a fool's paradise than no paradise at all. Better an illusion than nothing! So on and so forth...

Talks about "falsehoods" can reveal intuitions about reality. Fool's paradise and ignorant's hell: they can be equally illusory. Diamonds are hidden, but not absent. Then again, they aren't always necessary for the ubiquitous gems that can be found in seemingly unlikely places, provided one is willing to look. ;)

You really want children to be born, huh? Are you sure you can guarantee their wellbeing and not just any wellbeing mind you, wellbeing that ensures their total happiness from womb to tomb? If you can't, and I know you can't unless you're a billionaire and even then there's a significant level of uncertainty, you should concede and embrace antinatalism. There really is no point arguing against a philosophy viz. antinatalism that makes so much sense given how things are.

To drive home the point :point: Kali Yuga. Not really a world you want your children to live in.

Billionaires might not always be happy, and my experiences with many "rich" people have shown me that the so-called "poor" people have a wealth of joy that is the envy of the elites. Since people cannot say with absolute certainty that the person's life would be bad, I don't think that an absolute level of well-being is necessary for a sufficiently valuable life. I do think that this varies depending upon the individual.

I don't think that people need to create beings right now. If anything, I agree with much of what you say about the need to address the issues we face (such as climate change) before we start thinking about creating people. Concrete steps are obviously important, which is why I don't support mindless procreation.

One of the signs of कलियुग would be the tendency to fall prey to absolutist views, which wouldn't be a wise idea. Plus, there's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Yuga.

Billionaires might not always be happy, and my experiences with many "rich" people have shown me that the so-called "poor" people have a wealth of joy that is the envy of the elites. Since people cannot say with absolute certainty that the person's life would be bad, I don't think that an absolute level of well-being is necessary for a sufficiently valuable life. I do think that this varies depending upon the individual.

I don't think that people need to create beings right now. If anything, I agree with much of what you say about the need to address the issues we face (such as climate change) before we start thinking about creating people. Concrete steps are obviously important, which is why I don't support mindless procreation. — DA671

:up: I can live with that!

The युग are eternal in their formation. But they all never forgo hope and the need to follow a balanced approach.

I agree! Let's hope that things do get better.

"Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives"

One can value one's life and because of that come to the conclusion of antinatalism. "I value my life" does not mean I think life itself is good. It rather puts one in a vise, where you want to preserve your existence aka the thing you value but reality has different plans.

My point was about preferring one's existence to never having been there. It is also possible for people to value some aspects of their lives while also believing that it is mostly negative (the opposite is also possible). I was not referring to this group of people. Of course, if life can be seen as a gift, it can also be seen as something that is mostly negative. Any worldview concerning existence should not impose a universal prohibition against creating or never doing so, since both of them can fail to consider a significant aspect of existence.

Reality having other plans is quite true. But I think that the statement can also apply to experiences that are unexpectedly good. I and many of those I know received a myriad of such positives when all hope seemed lost. In such cases, life can often feel like a sturdy fortress that, despite facing multiple attacks, stands firm and acts as a potent source of happiness.

Empirically this is just not true.

There is no empirical evidence that most people don't value their lives or that there aren't good moments that we did not expect. Cases like the following are a part of the empirical domain, I think:

https://www.wect.com/2020/11/17/it-was-instant-regret-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-survivor-share-story-virtual-event-wilmington/

A more than trivial amount of suffering has been eradicated as a consequence of the end/reduction of issues such as smallpox, polio, widespread slavery, unopposed patriarchy, etc. Pragmatic use of technology can also help alleviate the suffering of sentient beings beyond humans (Pearce would be interested here). Although progress is hard (we do have to look into addressing afflictions like the rapidly rising inequality and climate change), I do not believe that it is impossible.

I am not saying that this is true for all. This is why I am a staunch supporter of allowing people to find a graceful exit if they cannot discover any good in their lives. It is also incontrovertible that procreation should not be treated frivolously. In my view, both universal antinatalism and absolute pro-natalism are flawed. I hope that you will have an excellent week!

"There is no empirical evidence that most people don't value their lives or that there aren't good moments that we did not expect."

Well cool, because I never claimed that. I won't take a your suicide link as generalisable. Not to mention this isn't about suicide it's about sparing people the harms of life.

"A more than trivial amount of suffering has been eradicated..."

And new diseases related to longer life etc. Improvements and betterment do not equate to good.

"I am not saying that this is true for all. This is why I am a staunch supporter of allowing people to find a graceful exit if they cannot discover any good in their lives."

You're making this about suicide again and not about the ethics of procreation. Two different things.

"In my view, both universal antinatalism and absolute pro-natalism are flawed."

Universal antinatalism doesn't exist and probably never will but doesn't stop the stance being correct.
Absolute pro-natalism is the status quo.

"I hope that you will have an excellent week! " I'll have a week whether I want it or not.

This is also about the value of life and making decisions on the basis of what one does know.

Improvements are good because they help people live better lives and also enjoy the things they have. Just as there are new problems, there can also be new solutions. Unrestricted pessimism is not generalisable either. Additionally, this was about reaction to the attempt, not necessarily the act itself.

I am not going to disconnect them both entirely because the ethics of procreation is also linked with the benefits/harms of life. Being able to avoid the unnecessary suffering that could come with being forced to continue a mostly negative existence is good and does have an effect on the nature of reproduction. If the harms are important, then so are the positive experiences.

Absolute pro-natalism does not exist for most people (as that would mean that it is always good to create as many people as one can regardless of the impact this would have). Universal antinatalism does not exist, and, considering its shortcomings, I hope it will not.

You certainly will have a week. There are also moments of fulfilment even when we don't care.

I'm curious, are you aware of the axiological asymmetry?

"There are also moments of fulfilment even when we don't care."

How patronizing.

I am, and I disagree with it. I don't think that the absence of suffering can be "good" or better for non-existent beings if the lack of happiness is not bad for those who don't exist. It is usually argued that those who don't exist are not deprived of any positives, but it is also true that non-existence doesn't provide any value either. If the absence of suffering can be good irrespective of whether or not there is an actual benefit for a person, then the absence of happiness is also bad. However, one should have a realistic framework that doesn't foist moral obligations that end up causing more harm than good.

I did not intend to be patronising. I have often felt that there are moments that are better than how they might appear to during reflection as a result of my mind having certain expectations or preoccupations. I am sorry if I said anything offensive; I did not intend do so.

Okay I guess that's the impasse then.

Telling people they're not perceiving things right and that their feelings are invalid is patronizing.

It is.

Professor Benatar and many antinatalists talk about how good experiences are not as good as they might seem (the so-called positivity bias). I think that this is patronising. I am not saying that your feelings are invalid or your experiences are unreal. However, considering that this is an issue that resolves a lot around our perspectives, I found it worthwhile to mention that there are those (like myself) who can find greater joy in their lives by focusing on the immediate experiences rather than the needs we might have for certain valuable things. If you were to tell me something that would help me live a better life than the one I am living now as a result of my less than optimal way of looking at my life, then, personally, I would be immensely grateful for that suggestion. But I acknowledge that I am probably much less intelligent than most people (including yourself) here, so my requirements could be greater than most. Once again, I apologise for saying anything that appeared to be dismissive.