Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof — Benj96

So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh!

We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at. — universeness

I think this story from Babylon 5 holds a deep, endearing message. I'm glad you shared it with me, I had never come across it before. It's really nice and quite apt to our conversation.

We do definitely need to consider our words and actions carefully. Words are very often underestimated in place of action. But words are mighty. They have huge power when used rationally and ethically. They shape and influence eachother beyond what physical bodily action could ever do.

To use your body to enforce your ideals, to be intensely active, is often a source of aggression, imposition and intimidation. To use words on the other hand is to suggest/impart meanings and beliefs without laying a finger on the other person. It allows choice.

So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh! — universeness

Agreed. We may be nature's most recent prize, its latest pride and joy, the current best effort. And we (as parts of nature) may create on its behalf something more durable, more long lasting, and imbue it with our nature, the product of nature itself, so that it may extend this awareness beyond the boundaries of what is capable by the human body. The next frontier.

But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in spirit.

Here is an even tougher one from Babylon 5.
Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned?

But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in sprit. — Benj96

In the timescale laid out by the cosmic calendar we are still an infant species. 10000 years of significant human cooperation and civilisation, is a few seconds in the cosmic calendar. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is antinatalism the answer?

Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals. — ssu

Save for editing our biology to remove the ability to suffer (as promoted by David Pearce) there is only antinatalism. Everything else is mitigation of suffering.

Alternatively, one could say the hundreds of millions living in torture are a price worth paying for all of the happy lives/

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Go on...

Why ought we discourage that? — Isaac

I don't believe there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. It could be argued, we ought to do what we feel is right. Thus, if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not.

It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer.

When the world stops becoming something to complain about… — schopenhauer1

It was never something to complain about in the first place.

These I don’t get. — schopenhauer1

Nor do I; some people have strange ideas about sport.

Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. — ssu

You realize anything can by fiat be called absurd right?

if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not. — Down The Rabbit Hole

In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context?

It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.

Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it.

The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not? — universeness

Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species.

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness

I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct.

... so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value. — universeness

But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon. — universeness

There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. Appeals to instinct are no more than the individual admitting they're but a mindless beast, and what's the point of discussing morality with mindless beasts?

The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.

Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means.

It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. — universeness

Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.

That's not a basis for moral decision-making.

It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice. — universeness

I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering.

I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context.

Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species. — Tzeentch

That was just a method of exemplifying your 'logic trail,' and how that trail leads to your irrational antinatalism solution.

I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct. — Tzeentch

It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint.

There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence? Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, thus showing there is no natural imperative to continue species. The Instinctive compulsion to reproduce is an example of the natural imperative but its not the only aspect. Humans wish to continue the story/bloodline/legacy of their family through reproduction this is also a natural imperative. Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own inability to find balance in your own life.

The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.
Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means. — Tzeentch

These are just your irrational opinions and exemplify/reveal your inability to find balance in your life.
It's up to you to solve this problem for yourself or seek outside help to do so. It's immoral for you to attempt to demand company for your imbalance.

Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.
That's not a basis for moral decision-making. — Tzeentch

Instinctual drives are not immoral just because you think there is something immoral about the concept of instinct. Human morality guides instinct. People do reproduce for many reasons, including a wish to contribute to continuing the species through their familial bloodline. That is a moral act not an immoral one. Do you think that human instinct has no input to offer when humans are considering an area of human morality? Are all human instincts just 'dirty, base and evil,' to you? Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism?

I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering. — Tzeentch

The fact that you have just admitted you don't care about reducing human suffering is a very important admission for anyone reading this thread to cognise regarding someone who fly's the flag for antinatalism. Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it.

I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context. — Tzeentch

But the decision to reproduce is problematic for antinatalists because they suggest this is an innocent self-aware lifeform, who was not consulted (impossible to do anyway) that MAY now experience UNACCEPTABLE levels of suffering, but YOU have just admitted YOU DONT CARE ABOUT REDUCING HUMAN SUFFERING. Can you really not see the contradiction?

Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own ability to find balance in your own life. — universeness

You’re not even paying attention to his argument at this point. Frothing at mouth.

The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth.

. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again. — universeness

I agree. Consider what a middle class person has available to them at this current moment: global communication at the touch of a button (internet), global foods and luxuries of all exotic sorts (chocolate, coffee, avocado's in frigid North regions where they historically were impossible to ever expect to eat for dinner). We have a mini Arctic climate in a little box in our kitchen able to preserve food as long as we please, we have an ever more complex and refined immune system (legal constitution) we can seek aid from for when others commit crimes against us.

We can travel at great speeds never before believable, be across the world in less than a day. We have all these tools and appliances that make previously arduous time consuming tasks fast, efficient and effortless.

Are these all things we should be amazed by, grateful for and happy thus? Yes I think so. Is everyone happy about it? No. A shame really.

To our ancient ancestors we seem like gods of unfathomable knowledge, power and abilities. And likely we would look like simpletons to the humans of hundreds of years in the future, our current methods appearing barbaric in their better refined modernity.

Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates.

The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth. — universeness

Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears.

Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates. — Benj96

Well said sir! From a google search:
In his 2011 book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker argued that despite common assumptions, violence has dropped dramatically from biblical times to the present. His new book, “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” picks up on that theme, exploring how other threats to human well-being have been in similar retreat.

This is the kind of evidence that shows humans HAVE significantly progressed in their goal to make the human experience a better one for all stakeholders including the flora and fauna of the Earth itself.
Things are still very worrying, I dont want to dilute that one bit, but they have been even more worrying in the past. Can you imagine being in or around Pompeii when Vesuvius erupted? You really would have thought armaggedon had arrived. How about living during the black death plagues. I think even I would have called out 'we are doomed, doomed, WE ARE ALL DOOMED!,' as my neighbours and family died all around me. But we survived and we continued to progress.

Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned? — universeness

It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do. Positive reinforcement and all.

For me this would seem like an unlikely scenario. It would mean humanity would have to be totally and completely blind to what's good for them, to lack all sense of what is good. Which sounds suspiciously like antinatalism again.

I think at most, if you really were a saviour of humanity and died for their benefit, you would be a great source of controversy, but not universally hated.

Some would hail your efforts as mighty and wonderful, others would say you were an anarchist trying to ruin everyone's lives by disrupting and upheaving the systems in place (even if you did so by simply by highlighting their flaws and trying to prevent their demise through that flaw. ).

Most martyrs or assassinated leaders are very controversial indeed. History books tend to polarise those that cause a great change or Copernican revolution of seismic proportions, as history writers are undecided towards either one of two arguments (he/she was good and saved us) or (he/she was bad and trying to destroy us) so they record both.

In the case that you believe you were a saviour yet every single person things you are horrible, evil, incorrect and deserve to be hated, I think one ought to assume that their judgement is severely misplaced. If no one is on your side then why believe you're actually doing something good. It's a matter of whether you respect others ability to appreciate good acts or believe you are the only one who knows what they're talking about and totally superior, everyone else just meer simpletons.

I don't think someone hated by everyone has any power to influence them, so thus unlikely to be the saviour of anything at all.

I don't think Hitler did much good for anyone. He probably believed he was a saviour blessing humanity with his efforts and simply ignoring anyone who contradicted this belief. Good leaders, actual saviours, entertain others thoughts and navigate them not by ignorance but by explanation (revelation).

Good leaders leave the choices to be made by others. They merely offer their wisdom and ask that others might accept it (democracy). Bad leaders make the choices despite what anyone else might think or say (dictatorships).

Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears. — schopenhauer1

All you do is throw another toy from your pram! around about 200 of them so far, according to the moderators. Make you antinatalist points, stop trying to throw your pelters at me, your efforts are completely benign.

It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions.

You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. — universeness

I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing.

Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, ... — universeness

Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to.

These are just your irrational opinions — universeness

They're rational arguments, which you'll have to refute using your own rational arguments.

Human morality guides instinct. — universeness

Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral.

Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism? — universeness

No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency.

Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it. — universeness

Not by/for me.

To use human suffering as the reason for antinatalism would imply utilitarianism, which is another type of "ends justify the means" argument that I am principally against.

Can you really not see the contradiction? — universeness

No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you.

It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do. — Benj96

Based on your response, I think you agree that dilemma's such as the two I highlighted from Babylon 5, at least demonstrate that figuring complicated stuff out, can be really really tough.
I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition.

I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition. — universeness

Haha sometimes the "No shit sherlock observations" are the most profound and useful. We often forget the basics on such a hectic and changeable life.

For me Antinatalists are:

1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering).

2). Lack any coherent good reasoning for that intention (because from their ideal concept: no one would exist - and then oops! Suffering doesn't exist, hence what ethical intention would they have to even suppose the ideal in the first place, as they wouldn't exist to have intention. Duh. ).

In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective).

You cannot have an ethical principle (existence without suffering) that destroys the assumptions (suffering) required to formulate that principle.

And that's why they feel helpless and sad. Because they don't contribute in action to mitigating suffering. Like starting a charity or educating people or doing a humanitarian aid trip. They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely.

Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem).

In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel.

But that's hopeful in the sense that the only other choice available to them is to stop coping, make it their own problem to deal with, which as you can probably anticipate, doesn't end well. And that's something we don't want for them. Hence why I try to explain and help.

The challenge is to imbue an Antinatalist with a reason to live that is better than just telling everyone else they should die. Because that's entirely ineffective as an argument strategy. No one who wants to live, enjoys living, wants to agree that they should die. That's obvious. And so all an Antinatalist will ever get in return is fierce rejection from happy, more hopeful, more omtimistic people or agreement from others that are severely depressed.

There is proof in the argument itself that others want to help an antinatalist to feel happy. Because if we didn't we wouldn't argue with them about it. We would just ignore them even though we know they're helpless and vulnerable. And that wouldnt be very ethical of us. The only way to derail someone's helplessness is to educate them through conversation and help them identify their depression in themselves and try to empower them to make the right decision to save themselves. As none of us can save them without their consent.

Whether one chooses to accept help from someone who is trying to show them an interest in life, to show them some positivity, is entirely up to them. But from the point of view of their ideal any help offered is interpreted as the greatest imposition. It feels like theyre being forced by everyone to participate in life because they still hold onto that part of them that doesn't want to allow them to be happy despite suffering.

You don't have to give up the intention to reduce suffering to be happy. You can satisfy both (recognition of suffering and the desire to reduce it) by getting your happiness and fulfillment in life through helping others to feel happy, but it requires letting go of a fixation on a contradiction, by finally accepting that it is a contradiction, and living anyways to fight another day. Together.

I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. — Tzeentch

You have simply decided to supress it, but it is still part of you, and it will revisit you at times. I have no children and imo, I am now too late in life at 58 to have any. You will see family units, having joyous interactions, especially parents and small infants, you will hear a parent talk about how their children are more important to them than their own lives. You will hear people talk about their long historical family legacy and such will make you think for a moment, and you will have to reinforce your suppression.
Even drama scenes like:

Demonstrate the 'natural imperative' and the suffering that can be caused by not reproducing.
Some people who cannot have children suffer very badly. Antinatalists also handwave that away as well with 'it's immoral to alleviate your own suffering by bringing new life into the world which can also suffer.' Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking.

Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions. — Tzeentch

So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?'

You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again.
— universeness

I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing. — Tzeentch

So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum?

Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to. — Tzeentch

I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint.
I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.'

Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral. — Tzeentch

And when these 'unpalatable thoughts' surface in you, is your established morality able to cope and ensure you dismiss such thoughts as just the mere random musings of your mind that are based on your primal fears, formed from the fact that our species came through a 'jungle rules' phase?
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species?

No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency. — Tzeentch

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! Why is that not special pleading and immoral?

No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you. — Tzeentch

Oh, I am reading exactly what you are typing, and I understand every word, as your thinking is not exactly complicated. I find the very few, different flavours of antinatalism, typed about on this thread to be equal only in how irrational they are.
So, you are not an antinatalist, based on the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority (utilitarianism). You are an antinatalist because you think it's immoral not to be such, as you think reproduction is an imposition on those who are born, as you did not have their consent. You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive?

1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering). — Benj96

But the antinatalist @Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism?

In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective). — Benj96

Yeah, I agree, antinatalism is contradictory.

They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely. — Benj96

Agreed!

Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem). — Benj96

Agreed!

In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel. — Benj96

It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers? Some dishonest interlocuters live on the buzz of contoversy.
Look at characters like Alex Jones (recently fined a billion dollars for his BS about the horrific Sandy Hook school attack), Ben Shapiro, who loves and lives off being controversial, Piers Morgan is exactly the same as is Donald Trump.
There is a horrible organised group in America called the ANI(Antinatalism International). To me even their name seems backwards. I won't post any of their nonsense here, but they should not be merely ignored. TPF member @DA671 already posted some awful but relevant footage from organised American antinatalists and it is material that should raise flags of concern. Having typed that, I do think that antinatalism remains gnat sized in the big human picture.

I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world.

Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking. — universeness

Not addressing his argument.

So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?' — universeness

Red herring. Applying morality to things that by definition can't be moral is a category error, including most animals. Not only is it a category error, it is simply besides the point he is making.

So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum? — universeness

Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong.

I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.' — universeness

That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons.

In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species? — universeness

Huh? Not even the argument. Another red herring.

I find the very few, different flavours of antinatalism, typed about on this thread to be equal only in how irrational they are. — universeness

Assertion that adds nothing to the argument. Rhetorical filler.

You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive? — universeness

A truth isn't how successful it sells to an audience. People often don't see "truth" at all, and certainly not right away.

So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?' — universeness

If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".

Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born.

So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum? — universeness

If the means are flawed the ends won't justify them, so my interest is consequences is secondary.

And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of?

I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent.

In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species? — universeness

It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking.

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! — universeness

I'm not.

If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you.

You are choosing to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible ... — universeness

I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.


All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.

You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.

You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks.

But the antinatalist Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism? — universeness

Well it wouldnt be true antinatalism then, if that's actually the case. If he doesn't care to reduce human suffering he doesn't behold an ultimate ethical principle for ending all suffering.
But if he believes all people should not reproduce that contradicts him claiming he doesn't care about reducing suffering because if people don't reproduce we go extinct and suffering cannot occur. So it would just lead back to the actual true antinatalist belief that we shouldn't exist to prevent suffering.

If he really doesn't care for reducing suffering perhaps he has let go of his antinatalist absolutism/fundamentalism and believes he deserves to exist despite the existence of suffering. Which is good as we can only fight suffering through existing, I think though that we ought to care a bit about suffering and not totally disregard it as doing so disregards ethics altogether.

I would see that this new view as an improvement on just repeatedly reiterating antinatalist idealogy in its endless contradictory cycle, but can be further improved by establishing a balance between one's worthiness to exist and an ethical imperative to minimise suffering.

In otherwords having the wisdom to acknowledge yourself as worthy and just do your best to fight suffering in a capacity that doesn't deny your own right to exist. That is harmony and balance.

It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers? — universeness

I wouldnt say buzz so much as a minute "hope" that their belief is valid - the antinatalist one that is. The controversy in itself serves to validate their "hope-rock" that they're clinging to to justify their existence. As engaging in debate about it validates its worthiness of debate in the first place.

The buzz is the same buzz as all the buzzes in life that maintains our hope, ambition, satisfaction, enjoyment, a reason to like living. And so that buzz is not something we should extinguish in someone, as to take away someone else's last shred of hope is to condemn to their own self annihilation.

All we can merely offer is a change in the quality of the buzz - how someone gets their pleasure in life, a step away from something absurd/toxic/dangerous and towards something worthwhile, meaningful and wholesome.

Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong. — schopenhauer1

Oh sure, let's go Kant. I think the clue might be in his name!
A normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action, is a very poor methodology to apply to the issue of species survival and progression.
Perhaps you need to switch your methodology to one which does consider consequences and by doing so you might finally see that the natural imperative to reproduce and continue the human story is a better choice that pausing the story, returning to the beginning and starting the process again to arrive at the same point with perhaps a different sexual reproduction method such as parthenogenesis.

That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons. — schopenhauer1

Not true, based on the examples I have already given. If you are correct that humans do not experience a natural imperative to reproduce, then why do so many humans feel unfulfilled if they don't?
I agree it can be suppressed but you have to work at that and maintain it. If someone claims they can suppress the natural imperative to reproduce with no effort at all, with no conflict arising ever, in their mind and body then I say they are lying.

Huh? Not even the argument. Another red herring. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, just keep 'phishing' and keep deluding yourself that you're catching anything, never mind actual red herrings.

Assertion that adds nothing to the argument. Rhetorical filler. — schopenhauer1

Typed by you as a rhetorical filler!

A truth isn't how successful it sells to an audience. People often don't see "truth" at all, and certainly not right away. — schopenhauer1

I know, you have demonstrated that 200 times on TPF apparently. Come on son, your audience needs more convincing. Keep schoppin!

I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world. — universeness

I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing really. Its very kind of you. I think that they have good reason to accept the olive branch and perhaps they do. It's hard to tell other than observing a change in their attitude and what beliefs they support and propagate.

If you fight antinatalism and suddenly they are suggesting more rational, reasonable arguments that are harder and harder for you to reason against (because they are less extreme and contradictory) then chances are you were successful in your goal, to steer them away from that vicious cyclical contradiction. You may feel defeated, but in actual fact that's only because you had a great effect - they accepted the beliefs you offered them and are now using them as their rock - a healthier one, in which to continue discourse.

You've tipped the balance back to the middle.
Given them your insights as a tool to defend themselves against the tendency to drift back towards antinatalism (depression). No longer then do you have the upper hand because you gave it away to help them.

"it's equally important to know when the fight is already won than to continue arguing beyond the point at which you already helped, for the sake of it, because you run the risk of role reversal where you yourself drift towards antinatalism.

At some point we must leave the table of argument knowing we instilled what we needed to in others, wisdom is knowing when the point was taken on-board, and you can then move onto the next crisis in need of your insights and help them out of that nosedive the same way you did previously. "

A job well done is just that - done.
You should feel proud of that fact, and move on.