Indeed, it involves both risks and opportunities. There is a risk, but it can be justifiable due to the goods that can exist. That which does not hinder us can prove valuable in some way. The unbelievably valuable destination justifies the "gamble", for the alternative is either good but also bad (assume that one thinks that the absence of harms is good), or merely neutral. Yet, I think that a mostly good outcome is better than both. The key is to act sensibly and not thoughtlessly procreate/fall prey to unremitting pessimism.

P.S. Those who can provide for the well-being of their kids are only a handful of well-off folks and so, for simplicity's sake, they can be ignored, like δxδx, from the calculus. — Agent Smith

The whole of human society has responsibility for the well-being of all children and all people for that matter, not just parents. We need to remove the rich/poor imbalance from the human experience, which will help alleviate human suffering without turning to extremist, fringe, low-brow thinking such as antinatalism.

Because if one chooses to interfere in the affairs of others, one should be certain their actions don't cause irreversible harm. — Tzeentch

Why? You just keep repeating arbitrary rules without basing them on any potentially shared objectives. We don't just follow rules for no reason.

It would be a bit of a cliché to say this, but I think one should also remember that wealth does not always lead to happiness. Many of the happiest people I have come across have been those who were not well-off financially. The more pertinent point was that becoming well-off was an ideal destination for them, not a necessity whose absence led to unbearable sadness. Obviously, none of this makes inequality or poverty better. Still, I believe that it does highlight that having the right perspective and not creating too many holes that let our contentment escape can be quite useful.

I think one should also remember that wealth does not always lead to happiness — DA671

I don't recall suggesting it does.
All people should be able to take the basic means of survival for granted as all people should be equally valued. The rich/poor imbalance supports a power/influence imbalance that creates massive suffering and undeserved harm for a majority. Health care and education should be completely free for all from cradle to grave as the alternatives again cause great imbalance and a great deal of undeserved harm.
Antinatalists would be more than absolutely useless if they spent all their energy fighting against these undeserved harms than typing the utter nonsense they type. Good people are forced to waste their time typing the same truths in response to 'misguided' pointless threads such as this one.
It's very hard not to respond to horrible concepts like antinatalism. It deserves imo to be utterly ignored but I suppose as long as the antinatalists make their useless noises, good people will feel compelled to respond to them and If they ever gain the guts to identify themselves in public then I predict that the response they will get will not be as pleasant as it is on this anonymous forum.

Most well-balanced report of the situation at hand! :up:

As I suggested previously in another thread, we need hard data to settle the matter, but to compound our woes, the subjective nature of joy/sorrow means data (happiness indices) will be worthless.

This brings us back to the question I asked: Given the uncertainty that's a feature of the issue, what should we do?

The antinatalist's dilemma: Sorrow ( :sad: ) or Nonexistence ( :death: ) [Suicidal ideation].

The natalist's response: Life isn't suffering (anti-Buddhism) & Life isn't mostly suffering i.e. the joys of life are being ignored. Took the bull by the horns!

The subjective nature of hedonism nullifies both antinatalism & natalism as pointed to above.

What do we do?

The whole of human society has responsibility for the well-being of all children and all people for that matter, not just parents. We need to remove the rich/poor imbalance from the human experience, which will help alleviate human suffering without turning to extremist, fringe, low-brow thinking such as antinatalism. — universeness

Desperate times call for desperate measures, mon ami! Consider antinatalism a symptom; that should clear up the matter for you. If I throw a party and I see someone :sad: , my party is bollocks! :snicker:

What do we do? — Agent Smith

Live, progress and continue the fight against viewpoints such as antinatalism and the narcissism of the very few.
Edit: Oh, I forgot to include 'and keep reproducing! Responsibly, of course.

If I throw a party and I see someone :sad: , my party is bollocks! :snicker: — Agent Smith

Even if the vast majority at your party are having a great time?
The pessimist! A hundred joys just cant compete with a single :sad:
I am glad I don't think like that.

Most Buddhists accept rebirth and do not accept universal AN. However, I do believe that life can be mostly positive.

What we should do, particularly at a time like this, is to focus on reducing inequalities as universeness mentioned and implementing ideas such as a free and fair right to a dignified exit that would ensure almost nobody would be forced to go through a primarily negative existence. Then, one makes people understand that procreation isn't a joke, which could help the people that do come into existence live better lives supported by people who genuinely care. In the end, the middle path (Buddha's idea) should be the way forward. Thank you for your kind words, and I sincerely hope that your concerns (and your happiness) are treated with the respect they deserve. If these are desperate times, then the need of the hour is to do everything possible to get out of them—and we will. Have a wonderful day!

Yes, I apologise if my comment seemed to suggest that you had said otherwise. I just thought that far too many people equate happiness with financial worth these days, which is something that should be avoided lest we ignore a more complete view that also considers other elements as well. Nevertheless, it's quite apparent that rising inequality is a serious problem that demands our urgent attention. Greater appreciation of the power of cooperation instead of falling prey to unmitigated competition can help us find a way out.

focus on reducing inequalities — DA671

:clap: and in reducing 'undeserved harms,' by employing better politics and by establishing powerful checks and balances which will prevent the nefarious from gaining power and positions of authority.

That, of course, is the final destination.

That, of course, is the final destination. — DA671

And no formation of antinatalists will ever stop the inevitable movement of the human race towards a fairer global socio/political system. Remember what the Mahatma said! All tyrannical systems in history have fallen. Do the antinatalists really believe that the human race will vote for their own extinction?
That is their ultimate suggestion after all. I mean come on! How ridiculous can it get. It's embarrassing that we have to debate such utter tosh because they continue to make their white noise.
Pointless distractions from the real issues going on in the world today.
The people of Sri Lanka have just demonstrated that the nefarious cannot always depend on the police and the army to support them. The police and army are not always filled with mindless automatons, sometimes they support the people as they come from the people!

What matters to me is trying to do the right thing. The rest depends upon the wills of the other sentient beings. I can't control them (nor do I wish to or am capable of doing so), and I will respect their decision (as long as it isn't the result of an external imposition/manipulation). I hope that the good in the world can be conserved to a degree that people would not have to turn towards the void. What happened in Sri Lanka is undoubtedly a good sign. More positive changes will probably occur as as their inner values drive them towards the greater good.

When it comes to the well-being of others, to take only those actions the outcomes of which we can predict with great accuracy. — Tzeentch

Why? — Isaac

Because if one chooses to interfere in the affairs of others, one should be certain their actions don't cause irreversible harm. — Tzeentch

Why? You just keep repeating arbitrary rules without basing them on any potentially shared objectives. We don't just follow rules for no reason. — Isaac

Because causing harm to others is bad.

This is turning into a silly game. Please get to a point.

I hope that the good in the world can be conserved to a degree that people would not have to turn towards the void. — DA671

I think the void you describe should now be awarded a new welcome mat with the words 'All antinatalists welcome here. Nonexistance available here, for all who apply, anytime!'

What happened in Sri Lanka is undoubtedly a good sign. More positive changes will probably occur as as their inner values drive them towards the greater good. — DA671

Hope springs eternal!!

What matters to me is trying to do the right thing. The rest depends upon the wills of the other sentient beings. — DA671

UNITED, we stand!

Let's suppose for a moment that there is a person, A, who out of the goodness of their heart makes it their business to interfere in the lives of others unasked.

A fancies himself quite good at what he does, and on nine out of every ten people into whose business he interferes he makes a markedly positive impact.

However, A isn't perfect, and one out of every ten people he ruins, by accident.

A calculated risk, A thinks. One out of every ten? That seems like good odds. A small sacrifice to make for the good for those nine others who may benefit from A's boundless benevolence.

So, is A a saint? A highly dangerous individual? What gives A the right to interfere unasked? What's the sacrifical lamb to make of this?

Preferably, I would like to see a world wherein we would not need the mat at all. Maybe it's a lofty goal, yet I think it's worth striving towards.

If people keep taking unnecessary risks (they are unnecessary because existing beings do not need constant interference for adequate happiness) for those who already exist, it could eventually lead to a decline in societal well-being. One has to think about the long-term consequences of a seemingly good action. Intentional severe harms for a lesser and unnecessary good is not acceptable. Creating positives that have a reasonable probability of materialising and do not requiring directly harming a single person in order to exist can be justifiable.

Preferably, I would like to see a world wherein we would not need the mat at all. Maybe it's a lofty goal, yet I think it's worth striving towards. — DA671

Absolutely! Perhaps we can also prevent the 'sacrificial lamb' type shortfalls or any 1 sufferer out of every 10. No people means 10 out of every 10 cannot ever be achieved. Let's keep trying for 10 out of 10 every time but lets never forget that life needs comparators to be able to understand and appreciate what 'good' is. We all need some bad in our lives to be able to enjoy the good. The antinatalists don't understand this it's beyond their ability to.

"Absolutely! Perhaps we can also prevent the 'sacrificial lamb' type shortfalls or any 1 sufferer out of every 10."

:up: :clap:

We all need some bad in our lives to be able to enjoy the good. — universeness

I hope you understand that the harm that befalls people isn't always limited to "some bad", and not always followed up with good to enjoy.

The antinatalists don't understand this it's beyond their ability to. — universeness

:roll:

There is a rather harsh Darwinian theory that those who do not or can no longer reproduce become less important to 'nature.' Almost like the old lion who gets 'overthrown' by the young lion who then takes over the pride. The old lion then wanders into the jungle and usually dies soon after. This speaks to the natural imperative of reproduction and survival of a species.
The antinatalists should be grateful that we are creatures who refuse to accept the old Darwinian 'law of the jungle.' But it is possible that their importance to 'nature' is reduced by their decision not to reproduce. I currently share this position with the antinatalists as I have no children. I have been content with this decision but the antinatalist viewpoint is one of the most compelling reasons I have heard to encourage me to make a newborn. Even at 58! :chin:

I hope you understand that the harm that befalls people isn't always limited with "some bad", and now always followed up with good to enjoy — Tzeentch

Does life just scare you? Are you afraid of coming to harm? Do you spend your days afraid of all the bad things that might happen to you or those you care about?

Because causing harm to others is bad.

This is turning into a silly game. Please get to a point. — Tzeentch

You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. The inaction resulting from your uncertainty might cause harm to others.

The point was made way back. Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? Your inaction is just as likely to result in harm to the welfare of others as your action.

Does life just scare you? Are you afraid of coming to harm? Do you spend your days afraid of all the bad things that might happen to you or those you care about? — universeness

None of those things. I'm quite happy. But I'm also aware of the misery that exists.

My concern is specifically with the morality of the act of imposing life upon someone.

Unfortunately, some people care too much about impositions and too little about the bestowals of great goods. Nonetheless, I hope that we will, as you mentioned, stand united—for the good of all.

But I'm also aware of the misery that exists.

My concern is specifically with the morality of the act of imposing life upon someone. — Tzeentch

And your solution to this concern; is to advocate for the extinction of your species through their global consent. is this correct? That's your solution?