We fear (in descending order of intensity)
1. Suffering (torture)
2. Dying (the transition phase between life and death)
3. Death (the state of being nonexistent)

I don't want to live on in my work. I want to live on in my apartment.
— Woody Allen — Agent Smith

I think this is a fair assessment. Personally No 3 doesn't concern me much, I'm been nonextant for most of 13.77 billion years already and it didn't bother me.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying.
- Woody Allen (again)

"Be fruitful and multiply" increases overall entropy. — 180 Proof

:up: Got me thinking about overpopulation - one posited way of bringing about the apocalypse (famine, war) aka chaos (high entropic state).

:smile:

Entropy is inevitable, but the creation of something that can act as source of inimitable joy and resilience isn't necessarily problematic. — DA671

Selfish, oui?

Stability amidst decay. — DA671

Zero-sum game! Your stability comes at the cost someone else's instability.

"we" — DA671

Yes, that's the nub of the issue - antinatalism & natalism are sweeping generalizations. To be fair though, antinatalism has a greater claim to the truth on that score (Benatar asymmetry, suffering > joy).

a world struggling with issues such as worsening wealth disparity and global warming — DA671

The future is bleak! Why bring children into such a sorry figure of a world?

The argument I made was not about what we fear. That's a psychological issue, not a philosophical one.

Death is clearly more harmful than torture, at least in the main, as we have reason to take being tortured over death, other things being equal.

Death is clearly a significant harm, and I have shown that our reason implies it is a harm of such gravity that it makes any life that contains it bad overall.

It is implausible that death is non-existence, as then it would not be harmful at all. Yet it manifestly is

Yes, I was just merely bouncing off what others had said since I am unable to follow your argument. I'm sure it is my fault for not reading closely enough.

Less than not doing so for the sake of a single-minded focus on harms ;) But yeah, I agree that purely selfish procreation is a reality that will hopefully change as people become more aware.

My instability does not justify the cessation of potential stability that could also help make others stable.

They both have their claims, but a deeper analysis clearly shows the flaws of the so-called asymmetry (it's not sensible to suggest that absent harms that benefit nobody is something good but lack of joy isn't). And I think that the hasty generalisation that suffering outweighs all happiness is probably untrue.

I agree that we must stop mindless procreation. The future could also be good, but this solicits effort. Reproduction cannot be taken lightly, and when possibility of harm is too great (I don't think this has to be the case in every situation), it would surely be sensible to not create a person.

mindless procreation — DA671

Antinatalists would say all procreation is mindless procreation.

My logic is simple. We can't guarantee the safety & security of children, nor can we ensure children will live a happy & content life. Given this, it's irresponsible & immoral of us to bring children into our world. Would you, for example, send your friend on a quest if his/her safety was in question? It's the same thing, may be even worse.

Of course they would, and I disagree with that. Since one cannot guarantee that no life would would be immensely valuable and permeated with joys that one could cherish despite the harms, it cannot be ethical to prevent all good. If there was a significant probability of a greater good that was in the intestine of my friend, it would certainly be ethical to do so, particularly if my friend could not ask for the journey to begin himself. And if avoiding harm can be in our interest, then so can be the pursuit of meaningful experiences. Of course, unnecessary risks are generally not required for people who already exist and have sufficiently good lives.

Overall, I do think that we need to take procreation more seriously, which is why I am grateful to people like you for raising awareness about this!

risks — DA671

Yep, that's the word I was looking for. Having children is to take a risk. Who bears that risk? Not the parents, no, the children! Doesn't that make would-be parents immoral? How would you like it if I asked you to undertake a journey to Afghanistan, that too on foot :grin: , knowing full well that you might be kidnapped, held for ransom in a cold filthy cave, tortured (to death), and then beheaded (slolwy)?

Parenting isn't always easy. I've met many parents who've sacrificed their careers and their enjoyment for the sake of giving their children a good life. Yet, it's undeniable that there are also many negligent parents.

The risks cannot be seen without the opportunities, which would only be caused by the parents, making them deserving of praise. If you did have convincing evidence that a heavenly state of love and joy was possible for all eternity after the experience, I would have to consider my options more carefully. And if you could send me on a journey through majestic clouds that imbue one with unfathomable joy, then the mere presence of rain wouldn't be a sufficient reason for not starting the journey, especially if it includes the love of people one would deeply care for and the ability to try to perceive and understand a mysterious yet captivating world. But this still doesn't apply to creating people, because the harm isn't necessary for them to live valuable lives and nonexistent beings don't have existing joy that is degraded by their existence. One does not intend for the harm to exist, but they do decide on the basis of the reasonable probability that the person could have a good life. Of course, it would not be good to create a person if the likelihood of harm was too high, and that's why procreating amidst a terrible conflict isn't a good idea. I wish people would stop seeing procreation as merely a way to gain more working hands or form "mini mes". It's definitely more.

... overpopulation - one posited way of bringing about the apocalypse (famine, war) aka chaos (high entropic state). — Agent Smith

Ain't we all just human, all too human (aka "stupid is as stupid does") .

Parenting isn't always easy — DA671

Yep! However it's tougher for the kids! Hence antinatalism.

I've met many parents who've sacrificed their careers and their enjoyment for the sake of giving their children a good life. — DA671

Doesn't that add to the suffering? Sacrifice :grimace: Like I said, life's a zero-sum game: children's happiness is paid for with parents' suffering.

The risks cannot be seen without the opportunities, which would only be caused by the parents, making them deserving of praise — DA671

I quote enjoy taking risks; life is, after all, a gamble. Nevertheless, some risks are not worth it! Pain has more weight than pleasure i.e. if pleasure & pain could be measured, 1 unit of pain > 1 unit of pleasure. Do the math (expected value, probability) and you'll discover that the game ain't worth the candle.

Thanks for staying positive though, but I'm afraid life is a lost cause or will be one...soon! Good day.

Ain't we all just human, all too human (aka "stupid is as stupid does") — 180 Proof

You're on target! I want to pick your brain on something that just popped into my head.

Antinatalism is definitely anti-life. Remarkable, isn't it, that life could, over billions of years of struggle to survive, produce antinatalists. I'm expecting evolution, if survival is its primary objective, to mount an equal and opposite response. What would that look like? Would all antinatalists die off?

Given this, it's irresponsible & immoral of us to bring children into our world. Would you, for example, send your friend on a quest if his/her safety was in question? It's the same thing, may be even worse. — Agent Smith

I wonder then if the best thing to do then is find a way to nuke the entire planet and kill all life. We would, perhaps, consider this one giant mercy killing (putting people and animals out of their misery) and definitively ending the breeding of more humans.

And also happier in many ways. Nay antinatalism!

It could, but once again, looking at an incomplete picture is dangerous. There is a potent joy hidden beneath that sacrifice, and I don't think it's trivial. Nor is such a great sacrifice always necessary, of course. Things can also be a win-win scenario, wherein people contribute towards each other's well-being.

Superficial pleasures such as material comforts might not be enough on their own for providing meaning, but I think that one who has seen the effulgent smile of the poor child hugging his mother in the slums would be forced to rethink their idea that harms matter more than the good. Extreme harms are (thankfully) not experienced by all, and whilst we do need to avoid them, I don't think their existence justifies the prevention of ineffably meaningful moments that only existing beings have cherish. The probability of a person considering their life to have been worth it is likely greater than the opposite, so I don't think that "math" supports not forming potentially billions of positive moments. And since most of us don't know what total harm or bliss are truly like, I think that claims to knowledge about that are conjecture. However, the case of the monk who calmly sat whilst burning could be an interesting example of the power of resilience. Risks that lead to a greater good is definitely acceptable. After all, letting valuable opportunities slip by would not be sensible ;) There are many candles out there. Removing a few bad ones should not be done by trying to stop any light from ever being there.

I also appreciate your kindness and care for others. However, I believe that universal antinatalism is a lost cause as far as the truth is concerned. The number of believers obviously varies. In the end, I just hope that people can have decent lives and help make the world a better place for all (and not have children when things aren't going well!). Have a brilliant day!

There is no "mercy" in violating the interests of billions of sentient beings for a nonexistent good or a "solution" that's much worse than the problem.

Nay antinatalism! — DA671

:ok:

incomplete picture is dangerous — DA671

Antinatalism is based off the complete picture: it concedes there is happiness, it's just qualitatively and quantitatively inadequate, especially when compared to the rich variety and severity of suffering, to justify procreation.

There is a potent joy hidden beneath that sacrifice — DA671

Precisely, natalists have it tough: they're forced to look at a black object and perceive a whiteness in it to make their case.

Superficial pleasures — DA671

Bullseye! There's no such thing as "superficial" pain!

math — DA671

Ask a friend mathematician to do the math. You'll see the light!

I also appreciate your kindness and care for others — DA671

I do care. Ergo antinatalism.

hope that people can have decent lives and help make the world a better place for all — DA671

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst! Antinatalism follows.

OP. Why do you think we die? Does nature know that, after a certain point in life (re: aging), the suffering is too much?

I don't think that it takes the richness and ubiquitous profundity of the joys into account to a sufficient degree, so I disagree with the idea that it does.

Except that the blackness varies, and while it can stain the surface, the white spots can be seen clearly even when they have been reduced. Fortuitously, they don't have to reduce to such a degree in the first place (nor is it the case that they cannot ever come back).

"Superficial" was in terms of chasing good that doesn't give as much value as something like a cherished bond. But by the same token, being exceedingly depressed over a mild headache while ignoring the other days when there wasn't one (and won't be one!) is not productive.

Mathematicians are too busy understanding this beautifully enigmatic cosmos of ours. However, I don't think that any honest calculation would suggest that the meaningful experiences are trivial. The light lies away from universal AN.

You do, which is why good continues to persist. Ergo, natalism.

Hope for the best (try to achieve the good), prepare for the worst (be resilient and conserve the value), and ultimately live a content life. Natalism logically follows. Bullseye indeed ;)

There is no "mercy" in violating the interests of billions of sentient beings for a nonexistent good or a "solution" that's much worse than the problem. — DA671

I agree. But I am putting it out there as it seems that for some it could be the logical next step from antinatalism.

For some, fortunately.

Antinatalism is definitely anti-life. Remarkable, isn't it, that life could, over billions of years of struggle to survive, produce antinatalists. — Agent Smith

The extinction fossil records of some 98% of all species is testament to life's blindly wanton profusion of ("antilife") maladaptations.

I'm expecting evolution, if survival is its primary objective, to mount an equal and opposite response. What would that look like?

Evoltion doesn't have any "objective". ("Survival" pertains to the species and only to individuals until they propagate their genes through live births.) "Antinatalism", on the other hand, is a cultural development rather than an adaptation to natural selection pressures. Don't confuse apples with oranges (i.e. first-order processes (genes) with second-order processes (memes)). The latter may be correlated with the former but there isn't any evidence that they are causally related.

Would all antinatalists die off?

Certainly; nonetheless their memes, like their genes, (might) reproduce too.

The extinction fossil records of some 98% of all species is testament to life's blindly wanton profusion of ("antilife") maladaptations. — 180 Proof

The only way to survive everything chance can and will throw at life is to use the exact same strategy (random gene mutations). Given this, maladaptations don't exist - every species is a chess piece life has mobilized against an opponent that's unpredictable and in a dangerous way.

Evoltion doesn't have any "objective" — 180 Proof

Would you agree that if evolution were treated as a person, like you or me, it's purpose (seems) is survival?

What would it take to convince you that antinatalism is correct/right/true? Hell I suppose, obviously. The only reason I would endorse natalism is heaven. The earth is neither, yes, but now we switch gears from type/kind to degrees, oui? How, in your opinion, could we measure how :smile: / :sad: people are?

Here's an intriguing dilemma for you:

Is the situation going to get better/worse?

If better, it's bad and so antinatalism.

If worse, antinatalism.

P. S. Don't treat your children like a general treats his/her soldiers.

If people cannot find adequate value in their lives, it would obviously be better if they did not exist. I do not think that an exact calculation exists, which is why it does not make sense to end the potential for immense happiness based upon one's own views. As for heaven and hell, I think that something can appear like neither of two because it can be both. But since absolute imperfection is not required for some lives to be better off not existing, I think it can also be ethical to form lives that would be appreciated by those who exist. A precise number seems improbable to me, and I am not sure that such a number could accurately reflect the depth of true happiness or even harm. People's own perspectives will ultimately prevail, which is why I do respect your view, even though mine differs from yours.

If the situation gets better, it is closer to the good, so it is not bad. So, antinatalism is not necessary. I have already said that creating people in terrible conditions is not a good idea.

Agreed. I also hope that we won't treat our perspective as the standard for judging the alleged disvalue of all that is worth preserving.

If people cannot find adequate value in their lives, it would obviously be better if they did not exist — DA671

That's all there is to antinatalism.

I do not think that an exact calculation exists — DA671

A lack of trying.

potential for immense happiness — DA671

Vs. Actual suffering. You ignore real pain for only the possibility of "immense happiness". Religion's empty promise.

creating people in terrible conditions is not a good idea. — DA671

Good! At least you agree with the logic of anitnatalism.

For the record, I, like all antinatalists accept that there's joy in the world. However, I'm doubtful of its authenticity - is it real joy or merely an illusion. Of suffering, I can't say such a thing - suffering is always real suffering.

Indeed, and that is why it is wrong because good is also there.

Nobody has tried to find the positive value either.

I was referring to harm and good that would exist in the future, In other words, I was referring to the fact that the prevention of nonexistent harms does not justify the prevention of the creation of actual goods. Solely emphasising the elimination of harms isn't the sort of religion I would wish to follow ;) I have never said that actual pain (and happiness) do not matter. They obviously do, and one can only talk about the future if the present is secure.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Working ones, however, are generally preferable! Happiness is as genuine as suffering. But yes, we should definitely strive to reduce the latter as much as possible. And if one believes that joy is an illusion, they should also be sceptical of suffering.

maladaptations don't exist — Agent Smith

Two word refutation: "Donald" "Trump" ... QED. :smirk:

... if evolution were treated as a person ...

Sorry, I'm not an animist, so anthropomorphism – special pleading – won't get you anywhere with that tact.

Two word refutation: "Donald" "Trump" ... QED. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:lol: Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He defies classification, a category of his own!

Sorry, I'm not an animist, so anthropomorphism – spacial pleading – won't get you anywhere with that tact. — 180 Proof

No problemo!

:ok:

:halo: