Well I don't judge my experiences of the world by what Benatar tells me.

I suppose you have the correct perspective then?

That is good. But many people (by which I mean almost all antinatalists I have talked to) agree with his assessments. After a particular point, one starts to presume certain things so that time is not unnecessarily wasted.

I could, and I could also be terribly wrong. This can vary greatly from one person to another. In general, I do think that there is a tendency (and I am not exactly above it) to emphasise what we don't have while paying little attention to the countless "little" sources of happiness around us. This can range from the beauty of one's surroundings to appreciating the food one consumes. I noticed that it wasn't necessarily that such things did not give me joy. Instead, I almost did not even consider them significant because of my prior desires for some specific things, ideas, etc. Some people close to me have experienced something similar. Nevertheless, I am not going to deny that this could be different for other people. This diversity of lives is the primary reason why I don't think that universal antinatalism or absolute pro-natalism are, even theoretically, correct ways to look at the world.

I agree with the asymmetry don't get me wrong. I think it's correct. Benatar just formalized something I already thought.

If you could be terribly wrong please let it rest for goodness sake.

Well, I don't think that it is correct to say that the absence of suffering is good even though there is no satisfaction resulting from it, but somehow the absence of happiness is not bad because there is no deprivation.

I don't want to pointlessly wake anyone up. I only shared my view as I think that I could also be right about this and help give a glimpse of an alternative that doesn't require believing that all that is good is not worth it (a view that doesn't cause me much comfort). Ultimately, views are bound to diverge when it comes to intricate topics such as this one.

Have a wonderful day!

We're trying to walk two paths here. 1) the asymmetry we could talk about that. 2) you talking about my perceptions of my life.

1) is fine to talk about.
2) is not, is patronizing and I wish you'd stop.

Who said the truth had to give comfort?

Did you know it's true you'll probably die of cancer?

Again, I was not trying to make this about you. The point was a broader one that I felt was relevant in the context of the value of life. I am sorry if anything I said was patronising. As I said, I was not trying to condescendingly tell you how wrong you are. It was more akin to a suggestion a friend might give (although I don't have many of them) about an idea and how they see it.

I have already shared why I disagree with the asymmetry.

It's particularly painful when (in my opinion) it is not even true.

Sure, it is possible (though I don't think that most people in all areas die of cancer). It's also true that I will no longer die of smallpox. Similarly, as someone who has suffered from multiple illnesses that essentially confined me to my house for years, I have also found that seemingly insignificant things (reading, family, art, etc.) can have indescribable value that can outweigh moments of great pain. For now, I can only appreciate what I have and hopefully do some good for others in this fascinating universe of ours.

Okay so we're talking about the asymmetry now? Or my week?

I do hope that your week will go well. Apart from this, you can write whatever you wish to. I have expressed my reasons for disagreeing with the asymmetry before.

XD

Sure, it is possible (though I don't think that most people in all areas die of cancer). It's also true that I will no longer die of smallpox. Similarly, as someone who has suffered from multiple illnesses that essentially confined me to my house for years, I have also found that seemingly insignificant things (reading, family, art, etc.) can have indescribable value that can outweigh moments of great pain. For now, I can only appreciate what I have and hopefully do some good for others in this fascinating universe of ours. — DA671

Does this justify procreation tho?

I think that the immensely meaningful relationships, aesthetic value, resilience, and the other numerous positive experiences of life (love, accomplishment, pursuing knowledge) can certainly justify procreation.

resilience — DA671

Resilience? Wait why is that in the list?

Against harms. There are people, such as Erik Weihenmayer, who have figuratively and literally climbed mountains despite facing seemingly insurmountable odds. It is not the case that the negatives of life will necessarily crush us without any hope for a better tomorrow remaining.

But you're surely not suggesting creating blind people so that they can learn to be resilient?

That's perverse. Or I'm insane.

No, but if people like Helen Keller can find the "faith that leads to achievement", then the durability of the individual is not a mere dream. Before creating, one can only act on the basis of what they know. Obviously, intentionally creating a life having mostly negative experiences would be problematic. However, if there are positives that do matter, then it can be justifiable (and good) to do so (assuming that it is not almost certain that the outcome will primarily be a bad one). This is why this is an issue that can transform depending upon the situation and a blanket ban on either option (creation and non-creation) can ignore one aspect of reality.

faith that leads to achievement — DA671

Ah religion. Can't really go much further with that.

However, if there are positives that do matter, then it can be justifiable (and good) to do so — DA671

Only to those who exist. Not to prospective beings.

She was referring to optimism here. I am sure that Camus was not a theist when he wrote about the invincible summer within him.

In which case, the harms also only matter to those who exist. If their absence is still somehow "good" or "better" for those who never come into being (despite the fact that this doesn't cause any benefits for an actual person), then the lack happiness is also bad, even if nobody is consciously feeling deprived as a result of not having any good experiences.

She was referring to optimism here. — DA671

She was an ardent Christian.

I am sure that Camus was not a theist when he wrote about the invincible summer within him. — DA671

Died at 47. Hard to know how authentic he was.

then the lack happiness is also bad — DA671

No because no one is deprived of the happiness. No one suffers. No one loses. There is no one. But when you create someone they will most certainly be harmed and that's a bad state of affairs.

I am aware of that. But that doesn't mean that everything good she experienced was a result of her faith. Others, like Camus or even many Buddhists, are not theists.

Being almost half a century old is not immature. We should also be careful lest we become patronising towards those whose experiences differ from our own

No one is consciously left in a happier state due to the absence of suffering either. If the prevention of pain can be an abstract good, then the prevention of pleasure can be an abstract harm (even if there is nobody who is feeling deprived). Not losing is good if something positive is gained or preserved (neither of which occurs for those who don't exist). If creation can contain harms (which are bad), then there are also positive experiences (which are good). The fact that everyone will definitely go through at least some good moments is a good state of affairs.

Camus was wrong <shrugs>

Buddhists — DA671

Religious Buddhists believe something as unverifiable and irrationally optimistic as Christians.

The fact that everyone will definitely go through at least some good moments is a good state of affairs. — DA671

But they're not necessary. And then you have to contend with the negative nature of acquiring so called goods within this reality (Schopenhauer). The asymmetry tells one there is no duty to create new sentient beings.

Not about everything (and it would not be apt to oppose a patronising attitude while doubting/discarding his analysis of his own life).

Many don't believe in God and mostly focus on meditation/living a simple but surprisingly positive life.

Non-existent beings are not begging for not being created. If it is still "necessary" to prevent the future harms, I would say that the positives are also good/necessary to create good experiences. I am not denying that one has to contend with the negatives, but, if the positives do matter and the prevention of suffering is good, then never giving birth would cause a reality in which we would also have to contend with the ethically problematic state of affairs of very few positives (which could be far more bad than good). I do think that standards should be realistic so that there isn't greater damage in the long term. In this world, in which there are already plenty of people, there isn't an immediate need to mindlessly start creating people. However, if the situation were to change, then it would be moral to create individuals (unless doing so causes more problems than benefits).

I would say that the positives are also good/necessary to create good experiences. — DA671

They're not tho. We've no duty to create them. If the universe went silent there'd be no issue.

if the positives do matter and the prevention of suffering is good — DA671

Only to existing people.

then never giving birth would cause a reality in which we would also have to contend with the ethically problematic state of affairs of very few positives — DA671

Only for those who exist in such a world. But if no one existed in such a world there'd be no ethical concern. Rocks floating around in the void is neither bad nor good. But sparing sentient beings harms is good.

And that would be neither good nor bad. In my view, life can matter for us. But if the absence of harms would be good in some way, then the lack of happiness will certainly be an issue. The silence would only be a haunting reminder of the immorality that has occurred.

The absence of suffering also only matters to existing people as it allows them to live happier lives. If we are saying that it is good/better even for those who don't exist, then the only consistent view would be that the prevention of happiness is problematic.

This also applies to the value of preventing suffering. Rocks would not be "better off" because of all the suffering they would not experience if we decided to not make them sentient (assuming we had that technology). If they would be, then they would also be worse off as a result of not experiencing any of the good journeys they could have had. Discarding the possibility of a myriad of good experiences for sentient beings is bad.

then the lack of happiness will certainly be an issue — DA671

Only for people who exist to be deprived of goods.

The silence would only be a haunting reminder of the immorality that has occurred. — DA671

No it wouldn't lol. There'd be no one there to be haunted! Please tell me you can recognise that?

The absence of suffering also only matters to existing people as it allows them to live happier lives. If we are saying that it is good/better even for those who don't exist, then the only consistent view would be that the prevention of happiness is problematic — DA671

If I told you could feel 2.5 x better(happier) for 4 years but you had to break my leg. Would you do it?

Discarding the possibility of a myriad of good experiences for sentient beings is bad. — DA671

Bad for whom? No one suffers the loss.

Possibly, but then the prevention of suffering will only be good for those who would actually benefit from it in terms of their overall well-being.

I would hope that metaphorical/poetic language has not been relegated to the sidelines by all. And if the absence of suffering would be good even if nobody experiences that state, then it can also be bad, even if nobody is being haunted.

That would depend. Existing beings can already be satisfied with what they have and therefore don't need endless interventions for happiness that may involve exorbitant risks. However, non-existent beings are not in some blissful state that would be jeopardised by our act of creation. As for me, I think that, assuming that this really is twice as much happiness, I don't think that breaking my leg would be that bad. Of course, this also depends on the impact this would have and whether the pain of breaking it would last longer.

Neither is it good/better for anybody. Nobody experiences a profit prior to existence.

I would hope that metaphorical/poetic language has not been relegated to the sidelines by all. — DA671

It's complete unacceptable to me, has been the root cause of so much ugliness.

Neither is it good/better for anybody. Nobody experiences a profit prior to existence. — DA671

The answer is no one will be harmed by this. The non existent don't suffer.

Your use of the word "root" (primarily used in the context of plants) with cause to effectively explain your point was quite beautiful to me.

And if the absence of suffering would be good even if nobody experiences that state, then it can also be bad, even if nobody is being haunted. — DA671

Bad for whom?

Existing beings can already be satisfied with what they have and therefore don't need endless interventions for happiness that may involve unnecessary risks — DA671

If this is true no one would procreate.