I certainly hope they don't. Value can be found in life even in difficult times. Additionally, one could feel that they could reduce more harms by being here. Lastly, and unfortunately, we still need to do a lot more to ensure that people who cannot find any satisfaction can find a graceful way out if nothing else can be done. Absolutist pro-lifeism isn't right.

Yes, but by whose standard?

The ethical standards of caring about the well-being of creatures that all sentient beings hopefully share, I suppose. It's in people's own interest to care about others, though it can be difficult to convince someone who spurns the call of their conscience.

Many people -- myself included at times -- want to take a generally good principle and universalize it, when every specific situation is almost always more complicated. I see this mistake in a broad range of activities, from monetary policy to poker playing. — Xtrix

Indeed. One of the perils, I think, of creating such a complex system as language is that it has the facility to create such grotesque castles in the air which we might then become so enamoured of for their intricate architecture that we'd rather not pay any attention to their gossamer foundations.

Because it makes us feel good. It's the pleasure of a clear conscience: "I didn't cause harm to anyone." For some people, it's one of the highest pleasures there is. — baker

Do you think people would still feel that pleasure on a planet empty of all human life bar them? Would they look around a fell good that they're causing no harm? Personally, I doubt that, and what little information can be gleaned from isolation studies does not yield any evidence of contentment at having caused no harm.

It is self-evident to virtually everyone that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to any harm.

That's not remotely controversial.

And it's not remotely controversial that if an act will create some undeserved harm, then that's a bad feature of an act - a feature that can be expected to create reason not to perform it, other things being equal.

It's not remotely controversial that procreative acts create a person who has done nothing.

It is the denial of any of these claims that would be controversial and apparently contrary to reason and thus that would require defence.

So the argument is valid and apparently sound. That's the very definition of a good argument. — Bartricks

This is indeed all valid and sound. It soundly proves that there is a negative aspect to procreation, that it creates a situation in which there will be undeserved harm which is a bad thing.

No explain why that is an argument for antinatalism.

Since literally all decisions are a weighing of positives and negatives, and you'd have to be moron to assume any decision in the real world were possessed of only one single factor, to make the above into an argument in favour of antinatalism, you'd have to show the badness you've identified is sufficiently bad to outweigh the goodness of the many other factors (plus the badness of some of those many other factors). As @Xtrix and others have pointed out, you can't have the goods of life without those harms, so you need to carry out this weighing exercise.

Otherwise all you've done is shown that prospective parents ought consider how much harm their children might come to as one of the factors when deciding whether to procreate. I don't think anyone would disagree with you there.

Probabilistic, game-theoreric analysis natalism-antinatalism:

What and how much are the charges for playing the game of life? Say it's -p (entry fee is in pain - how much pain qre you willing to bear?)

What's the probability of winning (happy life, +h)? Say w%

What's the probability of losing (miserable life, -p) ? 1 - w% = l%

The expected value if you play = $w\% \times h + l\% \times -p$ = (say) r [return]

The game of life is worth playing only if r > 0!

The antinatalists are happy running around their hamster wheels. Let them run, don't engage their panto responses of 'oh yes it is.' The oh no it isn't group.' won the argument 20 pages ago. As soon as their argument has been debunked, they should get no more responses.
@DA671 provided evidence of what they become over time with the two clips he posted. The antinatalists here can either join with evil people like the horrors in those clips and they can then look forward to a future of being watched by the authorities or they can continue to make their useless and harmless white noise inside large empty vessels.
They don't reproduce and their arguments are easily debunked. They are thankfully on a path to the extinction of their own lineage.
They soon enter a mania of repeat, repeat, repeat no matter how many times they have been debunked.
They are miserable misanthropes who pay every day because they have condemned themselves to be joyless husks, as to be otherwise, simply confirms their hypocrisy.
Their antinatalism will ensure their self-imposed suffering and despair, so let them run around their wheels and be thankful that you are not infected with their dimwitted point of view.
All good people prove these misanthropes wrong every day by experiencing joy, happiness wonder almost every day. We and those of us that have children can share in that fantastic experience and we can observe the misanthropes running around on their wheels to nowhere. They inherit the wind and because most people are good, they also have our pity.

Meantime, we will continue to work hard to alleviate all significant forms of human suffering.
The useless antinatalists will do nothing to help stop human suffering but they are a tiny useless minority. Thankfully we can develop better politics and better technologies which will reduce human suffering in the future. I predict that human reproduction will continue!

The value can be greater, though this isn't always going to be the case (just as its complete absence is not an ineluctable truth). May you have a wonderful day! :pray:

I do not wish to give up on others because valuing life cannot be just about oneself or one's group. However, each person will choose their own path. Thank you for your reply.

I know that. That's because you are one of life's celebrants and you are not a miserable misanthrope like the antinatalist is.

Apologies for the late reply. I agree that there is a difference between the moderate supporters of AN and those in the video, but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while. Sadly, there isn't much awareness about it.

I disagree with universal AN, but, as I have explained ad nauseam, I do believe that it can have value in making people realise the necessities to take suffering and procreation more soberly. I hope that you have a good day/night!

Thank you for your kind words. I should, however, mention that not all antinatalists say that they hate humanity. Many genuinely seem to care about others and wish to ensure that they don't suffer. All I would say that life isn't just—or even mostly—about the negatives.

should, however, mention that not all antinatalists say that they hate others. — DA671

What people say and what they feel inside can be very different. The antinatalists in the video clips you provided hate themselves and everyone else. The antinatalists on this thread express misanthropic, pessimistic, miserable viewpoints on life. Hate is a very strong word and whether or not a particular individual is more full of hate than any other emotion is only ever in the judgment of others.
I agree that nothing typed by the antinatalists on this thread warrant them being declared as hateful as the creatures in the two clips you posted but they are miserable misanthropes in my opinion and as you yourself stated:

but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while — DA671

The clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. I have had discussions with him and didn't find his imposition-focused arguments convincing (due to the reasons I've mentioned in my previous comments), but he appears to be an intelligent and kind person. I wish to avoid doubting people's intentions as much as I can. Nonetheless, it's undeniable that there are many who go a bit too far—and the cost can be irreparably high.

Many genuinely seem to care about others — DA671

Yeah, in the same way as Donald Trump genuinely seemed to care about his followers. :lol:

I mean, it's possible that not all do not care, but I still feel that a significant amount of them possess a lot of empathy. Also, many of them don't like Mr. Trump.

he clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. — DA671

Yeah, you can get many examples of people who will only go so far with their dodgy ideas and no further, especially when they see the more extreme examples of their dogma in practice. BUT also we must be ever cautious as there are many strange bedfellows in the realpolitik. Do you remember how the Nazis murdered Ernst Roehm and many of his brownshirts. The nefarious will happily sacrifice their own to gain some overall advantage or stronger position.

I mean, it's possible that not all do not care — DA671

I agree, it's possible!

Quite possible. But I will not give up—even on those who may have given up on everything. As long as there are good people in the world, hope for a better future will persist. I only hope that I can learn something valuable from them —or at least as much as my rather limited intellect can handle.

Humility has its place as long as you don't become a carpet that the nasties can just walk all over.
I hope that beneath all that humility you have a scary physical roar that the nefarious will clearly hear if they push you too far.

Or merely a magical ability to explain in a coherent and convincing manner that too much pushing isn't in anybody's long-term interest.

Still, it's true that one does need to (for now, anyway) know certain other skills. I hope that I can learn them to a sufficient degree whilst also striving towards the quite lofty goal of achieving humility. All I know is that there's a long road ahead—a road sprinkled with many potholes. Yet, I am grateful for the lamp posts I have found along the way :)

:up:
Even as an atheist, I respected and greatly valued the non-violent civil disobedience approach of the Mahatma. But the Nazis would have slaughtered him and all of his followers and would have taken India by force easily, if the wonderfully humble Mr Gandhi was running it during a Nazi invasion. Sometimes humility works but you need a lot more in your toolbox to deal with the nasties.

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the beast in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting."

—Mahatma Gandhi

Source: https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

:strong: :smile: :up:

The game of life is worth playing only if r > f! — Agent Smith

What’s the price paid for a non actualized happy life? And now the price paid for the other? Who bears the collateral damage?

Slippery slope
Cherry picking
Hasty generalizations

We must fear leftists because some crazy minority might agree with Stalin or Mao. :roll:

The value can be greater, though this isn't always going to be the case (just as its complete absence is not an ineluctable truth). May you have a wonderful day! :pray: — DA671

The math speaks for itself! I made a boo-boo but I fixed it (I think). Have a dekko and report any errors to me please. Danke!

What’s the price paid for a non actualized happy life? And now the price paid for the other? Who bears the collateral damage? — schopenhauer1

The math assumes it's possible to decide whether to be born as a human on Earth. The catch is the veil of ignorance - you have no control over those factors that make the difference betwixt a happy life and a sad one!

A few salient points need to be clarified: The w% and l% matter and so does +h (the amount of happiness) and -p (the magnitude of suffering).

No but I’m serious. Look at the question again. Also this utilitarian calculus… “Who” benefits from greater blah blah?