And the second fact is that nobody benefits from this. The non-existent are not happy.

Whoever this is apparently good/better for.

However, non-existent beings are not in some blissful state that would be jeopardised by our act of creation — DA671

Absolutely you're kind of getting it. I don't think we need to worry then about creating people no one gets hurt because of our needs if we choose not to create them.

Whoever this is apparently good/better for. — DA671

There is nobody to be miss those goods. How come you can't see that?

I was referring to the hypothetical case of being offered to break one's leg for the joy. Procreation, something that is linked to family and community, can have a lot more value (the loss of which would not be acceptable to many, which is different from intentionally risking their limbs for a good that they may not require for living a sufficiently good life).

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 — DA671

My leg not yours! You will give your kids the gift of disease and decay for your needs without the possibility of consent. That's what my thought experiment is supposed to be about but you missed it.

My view is that there is no absolute need to create people or to not do so as non-existent beings don't lose or benefit from either of these. In this case, procreation becomes a more of an individual matter that can differ from person to person. But if we need to celebrate all the harms we prevented for non-existent beings, then we do have to worry about the absence of the positive experiences. Nobody in the realm of nothingness is pleased about our decision to not procreate.

I do see it, but I also see something else. There is nobody to feel good/satisfied as a result of not experiencing suffering in nothingness.

In this case, procreation becomes a more of an individual matter that can differ from person to person. — DA671

Procreation is intrinsically NOT a personal matter. Firstly you need two people to do it and a third or even more persons are created who have no say in the matter.

But if we need to celebrate all the harms we prevented for non-existent beings — DA671

Wait. Who is celebrating harms?

then we do have to worry about the absence of the positive experiences — DA671

For whom?! Deprivation of pleasures is only for the existing not the non existing.

There is nobody to feel good/satisfied as a result of not experiencing suffering in nothingness. — DA671

Correct! Which is neutral! Nothing immoral has happened.

I was trying to explain the balance for me. If it was about breaking your leg, I don't think that it would be good for you (which is what matters when we are talking about personal value). A society in which people are casually breaking people's legs will likely descend into anarchy, so I would not agree with it (especially because it isn't as if I could not live a decently happy life without the act). I don't think that the concept of consent applies to a case in which no prior interest is being ignored. But if life can be seen as an imposition, it can be seen as an authentic gift that allows people to experience love, beauty, and knowledge (none of which they could have asked for before existing).

A society in which people are casually breaking people's legs will likely descend into anarchy, so I would not agree with it — DA671

So why is it okay give people age related disease and loss of ability?

I was talking about the overall nature of procreation and saying that it may not be always bad or always good.

By "celebrating", I meant saying that it is good.

Similarly, the benefits of not suffering are only for those who exist, not for nothingness.

It's not okay to give diseases to existing people who could enjoy the state of being healthy. When we are creating individuals, however, we have to take both positive and negative elements into account.

Neutrality is inferior to that which is good. And, if the absence of suffering is good (as opposed to being merely neutral), then the lack of happiness is also bad.

By "celebrating", I meant saying that it is good. — DA671

You said celebrating harms. Did you not? No one is doing that.

then the lack of happiness is also bad. — DA671

I'll just keep asking; for whom is it bad?

I never said it was. It is, however, good to create good experiences that promote beauty, the dynamic power of love, and the ability to learn about the enthralling reality.

I said "all the harms we prevented". What I meant was saying that the absence of harms is good, which is something that many say.

For the person for whom it is "better" to not suffer even though they don't even exist.

For the person for whom it is "better" to not suffer even though they don't even exist. — DA671

They don't exist nothing can be good or bad for them. Only existing people can suffer or enjoy harms and benefits.

What I meant was saying that the absence of harms is good, which is something that many say. — DA671

Including me. For existing people!

If we say that it is "better" for them to not exist, we are effectively saying that it is good in some way. States that are not good have no value, which is why we have no obligation to choose them. If creating harms is bad (and not doing so is good), then creating happiness is good (and not doing so is ethically dubious).

If the absence of harms is only good for existing people, then there is no reason to say that not creating them is an obligation. Once again, a state that is not good in any way has no value and therefore doesn't give us any reason to prefer it or to call it better. If we are saying that non-existence is good because there is no suffering involved, then one can also say that it is bad as there is no good present. Finally, if the view is that non-existence is "neutral" and is better than a negative state (suffering), then it is also true that a neutral state is worse than a positive state (happiness). If we don't need someone to feel satisfied/happy for us to say that the prevention of suffering is good, we don't need someone to feel deprived for us to understand that the prevention of joy is bad.

Explain?

Actually, antinatalism is incorrect. Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives, so I would not say it's a privilege. Secondly, I think one could also say that suffering is an illusion. We are all happy to varying degrees, even if we don't recognise that yet — DA671

How can we say that suffering is an illusion? Are cancers, chronic painful medical conditions "illusions"? Was the Holocaust "not real"? Did black slaves "ask for it" by not putting up more resistance?

If you were to go through the entire conversation, you would see that I was merely making a parallel claim to the idea that the incalculable joy that many people claim to have experienced through love, through triumphing over diseases such as polio, through feeling the gale of freedom from the extensive slavery that once existed, and from even allegedly trivial things such as admiring the beauty of the world around us is actually an illusion (which is what my interlocutor was saying).

I am sorry for causing any confusion concerning this.