There are women that like being pregnant more than they like having children, but in general, the notion of doing anything either for or because of a foetus rather than for the projected stranger seems incoherent. — unenlightened

Remember, the topic is whether self-actualization is an indirect reason why non-religious people have children. As Erik Faerber was saying, if you ask many prospective parents, the most "non-frivolous" reasons seems to be to raise someone to have all the things in Maslow's Hierarchy (love/belonging, esteem), as well as to be the best person they can be with the talents and preferences of that individual (self-actualized person). Along with this is the elusive "happiness" that is more associated with entertainments of sorts that fill the free time of non-survival related activities. This brings up several larger points, however:

1) Is giving a new person the potential for loving/self actualized/happy life worth the burdens that life entails?

2) Why should we endevor to give anything to something that did not exist in the first place? To quote Ligotti "Non-existence never hurt anyone".

3) Would any reason that is based on the parents' lifestyle preferences be a good one for producing a whole new life and all that this will entail for the new being (i.e. the inevitable contingent and structural burdens of life)?

Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. — Hume

I reject the calculus of happiness and suffering entirely as a spurious attempt to rationalise the value of life. I love life, you hate it; there is nothing to argue about.

Yet this reply does not address the three questions directly. It's not a spurious attempt as I actually have three critiques that you overshot to put a clever quote in. Would you be able to address the questions I posed rather than red herring it? Or if you believe this is not a red herring or a handwave, how does it apply directly to the three questions?

Edit: This sort of addresses the first question I posed. If that is what it is meant to apply to, my response is how is it any burden is justified when no burden needed to exist in the first place? Also, since you are a separate person from your potential child, I'd assume that you can have widely varying views, experiences, and temperaments, and reactions, despite the genetic/environmental proximity. Perhaps you also overestimate the happiness of happy experiences because a) at present you are content and thus misapply this to all future and past scenarios (Pollyanna), or b) you simply overestimate to disprove a point you dislike.

this reply does not address the three questions directly. — schopenhauer1

1. Is the happiness worth the suffering?

It does not compute. It does not add or subtract or multiply.

2. Why should we endevor to give anything to something that did not exist in the first place?

This just makes no sense to me. There is no obligation to give anything to something that does not exist. Obviously.

3.]Would any reason that is based on the parents' lifestyle preferences be a good one for producing a whole new life and all that this will entail for the new being (i.e. the inevitable contingent and structural burdens of life)?

No. But reasons have no place in procreation.

This just makes no sense to me. There is no obligation to give anything to something that does not exist. Obviously. — unenlightened

I'll say it differently- what makes the treadmill of life (including keeping oneself alive within a social context, the inevitable burdens, etc.) worth it for a new person, when that person did not need to be created in the first place?

No. But reasons have no place in procreation. — unenlightened

Why? You are claiming a notion that is not true. Just because there is no particular person that will exist, you know generally, that a person can exist. Just because you do not know the particular identity of the person that will be created does not negate reasoning about procreation. Do you not agree that where there was no particular person before birth, where there was no person to experience life, that after birth, they will indeed experience the treadmill and burdens of life? Then I simply go further and add that being that we know that life indeed is something a new person will have to deal with (keeping themselves alive in a social context, burdens of life, etc.), why were these well-known burdens (or possible burdens) worth it to create for someone in the hopes of someone experiencing love/esteem/happy experiences/flow, and most of all- self-actualization?

I clearly do not have to explicate this in detail, as you know what I am asking. This is an attempt to shut down the argument so you do not have to answer the question directly. The question makes sense, and is legitimate, but you might not like the answer. It ruffles your feathers.

This is an attempt to shut down the argument so you do not have to answer the question directly. The question makes sense, and is legitimate, but you might not like the answer. It ruffles your feathers. — schopenhauer1

I don't have an argument with you. You put your attitude to life into the form of a question, but I don't have that attitude, so the question has no meaning to me. I can respect your attitude, and your consistency, and I have nothing to persuade you otherwise, except the beauty of life and my own gratitude for it, with all the pains that go with it. Perhaps I have been exceptionally fortunate, I don't know, but burdens can be taken as challenges - how far can you carry your cross?

Perhaps I have been exceptionally fortunate, I don't know, but burdens can be taken as challenges - how far can you carry your cross? — unenlightened

I guess the question is, why provide that cross in the first place? To be or not to be, right? What is so bad about not being born in the first place? What are the drawbacks?

What is so bad about not being born in the first place? — schopenhauer1

I don't know, I'd have to try it, and let you kn... no that wouldn't work, would it? Unless we met in the waiting room for incarnation.

Well my best guess from here is that I wouldn't be here, which is no deficit from the pov of not being here, but from the pov of being here, which is the one I have, I'd be deprived of life, with all its opportunities for carrying crosses and posting insightful comments - in short a tragedy for both the world and me personally. If I was not alive, I would never think about it, or feel deprived, but as I am alive, I do feel grateful and privileged.

Well I would miss you. I would never have been introduced to Krishnamurti, for a start.

Personally, I'd rather read Un. That's why he should always post more.