Here's my attempt to simplify and clarify the anti-natalist argument.

P1 : Human experience is bad, negative, undesirable.
P2 : We should act to reduce that which is bad, negative, undesirable.

Therefore we should strive toward the cessation of human experience, preferably nonviolently, by discouraging reproduction.

As I see it, the problem is almost always P1 (though P2 could be challenged.)

Hey plaque you're back! Good to see you.

P1 : Human experience is bad, negative, undesirable.
P2 : We should act to reduce that which is bad, negative, undesirable.

Therefore we should strive toward the cessation of human experience, preferably nonviolently, by discouraging reproduction.

As I see it, the problem is almost always P1 (though P2 could be challenged.) — plaque flag

Yes, that is it basically. What @180 Proof wants to do is to try to make the attempt "futile" and to say that if someone doesn't exist to experience the "relief" of "not suffering", it is essentially like you are doing nothing. I don't see it that way. Rather, someone isn't suffering, and that is good (from the perspective of someone who could recognize what is not taking place).

Also, on point 1 there, others will argue that creating people that can experience happiness/good things is somehow "moral" despite creating the suffering/negatives/burdens/enthalpy-fighting-entropy that goes with it. However, I do not see creating "happiness" as anything ethically obligatory, and more so when there is no one existing already. So I think that argument is also bunk. So if I was to parse that out it would be:

1) Happiness-giving is not an obligation, especially when no one is deprived of happiness to begin with.
2) Happiness-giving when accompanied by numerous intractable harms is not even purely happiness-giving. It is not a gift in the traditional sense that it comes with many burdens. Thus this "gift" is negated as such.

And finally, the rebuttal that "people don't exist to be relieved of not suffering", is simply a non-issue, as what matters is the state of affairs of not suffering. The hidden assumption is the asymmetry that the not-happiness should matter, but going back to 1 and 2.

Hey plaque you're back! Good to see you. — schopenhauer1

Thanks!

Yes, that is it basically. — schopenhauer1

Excellent. As you probably remember, I think antinatalism is fascinating. To me 'antithetical' philosophy is counterculture. Antinatalism is almost perfectly antithetical / countercultural. (Recently Elon Musk supported a tweet suggesting that nonparents should have no vote. )

I got this use of 'antithetical' from Nietzsche, and I find it useful to think of Nietzsche (in this context) as a rebellious philosophical son of Schopenhauer.

Excellent. As you probably remember, I think antinatalism is fascinating. To me 'antithetical' philosophy is counterculture. Antinatalism is almost perfectly antithetical / countercultural. (Recently Elon Musk supported a tweet suggesting that nonparents should have no vote. )

I got this use of 'antithetical' from Nietzsche, and I find it useful to think of Nietzsche (in this context) as a rebellious philosophical son of Schopenhauer. — plaque flag

I heard about the Musk thing. Really weird anti-democratic stance. Nietzsche, as you may know, I find problematic as he is another philosopher used to justify self-fulfilling suffering. In other words, his idea of an Eternal Return is used to say that we are doomed to simply always exist, so attempts at something like not bringing people into existence would be futile because of the eternally repeating nature of the system, or something of this nature.

Also, on point 1 there, others will argue that creating people that can experience happiness/good things is somehow "moral" despite creating the suffering/negatives/burdens/enthalpy-fighting-entropy that goes with it. — schopenhauer1

I can't speak for @180 Proof, but perhaps you are overlooking a different perspective : The moral issue is secondary to the practical issue. We are primates 'programmed' to replicate. It looks impossible to stop the machine.

I can't speak for 180 Proof, but perhaps you are overlooking a different perspective : The moral issue is secondary to the practical issue. We are primates 'programmed' to replicate. It looks impossible to stop the machine. — plaque flag

But we are primates who can deliberate, so are we really the same in that respect to other primates? Are we not more like Zapffe's mechanisms of ignoring, anchoring, denying, etc or Sartre's idea of bad faith? In other words, are we not also an existential animal?

I heard about the Musk thing. Really weird anti-democratic stance. — schopenhauer1

Yes. To me the religion of babymaking is at the core of 'thetical' culture. The individual dissolves into the replication goo: hive mentality.

But we are primates who can deliberate, so are we really the same in that respect to other primates? Are we not more like Zapffe's mechanisms of ignoring, anchoring, denying, etc or Sartre's idea of bad faith? In other words, are we not also an existential animal? — schopenhauer1

I think we are indeed the existential animal.

I find us more determined than free. We 'know' this in our data analysis while at the same time holding the opposite notion of the free-responsible agent at the center of our culture. Sartre squeeze this lemon for all it's worth : his 'nothingness' is like free will maybe. I am condemned to be free held responsible.

. In other words, his idea of an Eternal Return is used to say that we are doomed to simply always exist, so attempts at something like not bringing people into existence would be futile because of the eternally repeating nature of the system, or something of this nature. — schopenhauer1

To me this is almost stolen from Schopenhauer's discussion of the futility of suicide. My death doesn't change much, because I have seen through the illusion of personality. 'I' will just be reborn. Real change has to happen at the level of the species.

I like to think of Nietzsche as a more recent Hamlet. For me he's a highly instructive and relatable dissonant tangle of voices/perspectives.

Yes. To me the religion of babymaking is at the core of 'thetical' culture. The individual dissolves into the replication goo: hive mentality. — plaque flag

As far as human-survival, we develop strong cultural beliefs that are enculturated, but surely that can be de-programmed by other ideas. The individual does have some agency. We are working against common tropes, but these tropes are simply learned and not intractable.

I think we are indeed the existential animal.

I think we are more determined than free...while at the same time holding the notion of the responsible agent at the center of our culture. (Sartre squeeze this lemon for all it's worth : his 'nothingness' is like free will maybe. ). I am (as he puts it well) condemned to be free held responsible. — plaque flag

Sartre was against bad faith thinking, the idea that we are destined to play a role. Rather, cultural beliefs calibrate the individual to the "hive mind" so-to-say, that speaking against the core beliefs creates anger and anxiety, so we stick within its bounds. It's group-think. You can't complain too much in society, or you will be hated and spit upon. You are worse than a criminal because you reject all of it, and not just this part or that part of it.

To me this is almost stolen from Schopenhauer's discussion of the futility of suicide. My death doesn't change much, because I have seen through the illusion of personality. 'I' will just be reborn. Real change has to happen at the level of the species.

I like to think of Nietzsche as a more recent Hamlet. For me he's a highly instructive and relatable dissonant tangle of voices/perspectives. — plaque flag

True, even Schopenhauer retreats to the self-fulfilling idea that Will will always will itself in various forms, so one cannot prevent it. Yet, at the same time, he offers various forms of "escape", mainly via asceticism. This speaks to his metaphysics which to me, is not completely airtight. That is to say, if asceticism leads to death of the individual ego or something like that, how does this really "stop" Willing in the broader metaphysical sense, rather than just one's own manifestation of it? And if that's the case, then indeed, not procreating would make a difference from at least one POV, just like that ascetic person dissipating their ego. I think he wants to have both where the individual ego is the World, but it seems like he wants both. Not sure.

As far as human-survival, we develop strong cultural beliefs that are enculturated, but surely that can be de-programmed by other ideas. The individual does have some agency. We are working against common tropes, but these tropes are simply learned and not intractable. — schopenhauer1

One of my concerns in this context is Moloch (game theoretical). It's the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing. Concretely, I'm a nonparent taciturn thoughtcriminal --not very contagious, even if there was much susceptibility out there. I can't teach my children to not have children, but self-consciously virtuous breeders can very much send out missionaries, generation after generation potentially. I recently saw a vid suggesting that Israel is shifting politically for reasons involving the correlation of ideology and number of offspring.

Sartre was against bad faith thinking, the idea that we are destined to play a role. — schopenhauer1

Right. He's a bit of an old school moralist on this issue. Personal responsibility ! A streak of the GOP in this famous lefty (which probably helps make him sufficiently complex to keep me interested.)

I think you are correct that his metaphysics isn't airtight. I like him best as the grim theorist of futility. He's also great in Nausea. Along with anti-natalism, another great countercultural moment in philosophy is the essentially apolitical attack on the spirit of seriousness. Sartre could be very earnest, but there's a grim-transcendent streak in his persona that I value.

Rather, cultural beliefs calibrate the individual to the "hive mind" so-to-say, that speaking against the core beliefs creates anger and anxiety, so we stick within its bounds. It's group-think. You can't complain too much in society, or you will be hated and spit upon. You are worse than a criminal because you reject all of it, and not just this part or that part of it. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Socrate's being forced to drink the hemlock is not (only) something that happened but something that's happening and will continue to happen. But part of me wants to say that he was a corrupter of youth. It's a matter of perspective and identity.

One of my concerns in this context is Moloch (game theoretical). It's the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing. Concretely, I'm a nonparent taciturn thoughtcriminal --not very contagious, even if there was much susceptibility out there. I can't teach my children to not have children, but self-consciously virtuous breeders can very much send out missionaries, generation after generation potentially. I recently saw a vid suggesting that Israel is shifting politically for reasons involving the correlation of ideology and number of offspring. — plaque flag

Indeed, good point. Parents missionize de facto. Ironic that AN is accused of it, when by force their ranks are filled :wink:. AN simply says to stop and think, what is going on here? I think this can all be summed up with simply not reflecting. Even well-educated people don't think much about "existence" itself. That's because the hive-mind (enculturation process) wants that thinking to go towards production. to ENTHALPY to keep the individual and societal ENTROPY AT BAY!

It’s always burdens and never boons. It’s always suffering but never pleasure. It’s always entropy but never negentropy or free energy. How come anti-natalists never include, and even avoid, opposing events in their screeds?

Parents missionize de facto. — schopenhauer1

Many parents just did/do what everyone does. This does contribute to the sense of what everybody does, but the explicit breeding ideology is more on the right at the moment. I notice Matt Walsh speaking of homosexuality as a 'disordered' sexuality, presumably (in his mind) because sex is 'supposed' to be fertile. I also read a female conservative's review of Cormac McCarthy's last novel, which features a female nonparent genius who commits suicide. The reviewer was clearly educated, but at the bottom of her analysis was a crude mysticism of the mystery of parenthood. Roughly, it was if she was allowing that even Science is empty when compared to Parenthood. All is vanity except for that sacred continuation of the species --- which is a line I might put in the mouth of personified DNA.

When I read Schopenhauer, I identified with that futile individual struggling against dissolution in speciesgoo. In other words, the spirited thing to do is to cheat nature with birth control, homosexuality, masturbation, life-extending treatments, etc. 'The life of the child is the death of the parent.' At the same time, this attitude has always only a finite intensity, because we are programmed to find great joy and depth in nurturing.

One's life does not have to be someone's death if one's is not forced to contribute towards the cause of life by physical or psychological pressure. I would say that procreation can certainly have value, just as life-extension and exploring the esoteric aspects of life do.

Being a pessimistic missionary against the continuation of life is probably slightly worse than frivolous parents ignorantly pushing everyone to reproduce, though I acknowledge that the latter can easily become extremely troublesome.

Burdens and boons both exist. There may be decay, but there is also creation and sustenance of that which already exists.

How come anti-natalists never include, and even avoid, opposing events in their screeds? — NOS4A2

It goes back to this:

1) Happiness-giving is not an obligation, especially when no one is deprived of happiness to begin with.
2) Happiness-giving when accompanied by numerous intractable harms is not even purely happiness-giving. It is not a gift in the traditional sense that it comes with many burdens. Thus this "gift" is negated as such.

And finally, the rebuttal that "people don't exist to be relieved of not suffering", is simply a non-issue, as what matters is the state of affairs of not suffering. The hidden assumption is the asymmetry that the not-happiness should matter, but going back to 1 and 2. — schopenhauer1

Obligations for happiness-giving is of very little or no moral consideration. Suffering-preventing (or giving depending on how you frame it) is very significant for moral consideration, however.

If life was indeed a paradise that no one ever got bored of, that you are creating for another, you might have some traction with that consideration. But it's obviously not, so now you have to justify why you are suffering-creating (at least the conditions thereof that will inevitably take place).

The problem is negentropy is a word, the actual lived experience of negentropy is the varying things to keep homeostasis in the animal. All the work, stress, and burden to fight entropy's tendency.

When I read Schopenhauer, I identified with that futile individual struggling against dissolution in speciesgoo. In other words, the spirited thing to do is to cheat nature with birth control, homosexuality, masturbation, life-extending treatments, etc. 'The life of the child is the death of the parent.' At the same time, this attitude has always only a finite intensity, because we are programmed to find great joy and depth in nurturing. — plaque flag

Yep. What is it about this "nod" to being that people seem to be programmed for? What is the programming exactly that aligns with "being is good, AN is bad. you go away now" (said in the vein of Homer losing part of his brain).

That good exists doesn't negate the bad. The problem is humans are an existential creature, which means we can at any time contemplate existence itself.

In terms of chemistry I know the difference, though if pressed I always have to look up what enthalpy means.

Enthalpy is one of those terms that highlights how much science is built for humans rather than is a universal concept. We wanted to know how much energy was not because of a change in temperature when measuring the temperature of chemical reactions so we invented a term called enthalpy to distinguish between heat and work in a chemical system which allowed us to put "heat" in a similar category to "friction" -- that other force/work that allows us to make the balance sheet work out.

Funnily enough humans invented the topic before modern theories of chemical bonding. It's very much an artifact of classical thermodynamics. And so your interpretation of it will depend upon how you interpret the various "levels" of science and how much historical terms are merely influential vs. are actually true. (EDIT: Also, funnily enough, by "modern theories of chemical bonding" I really only mean ones influenced by the quantum revolution. Soooo ya'know -- at least 100 years old)

But maybe this is all off-topic, because you're asking after ethical implications, of which I'd say there are none.

But maybe this is all off-topic, because you're asking after ethical implications, of which I'd say there are none. — Moliere

And we are not facing entropy daily?

I don't think so. Entropy is too rarified a concept to include in what I'd call what we face on the day-to-day. It's too complicated, and for specific purposes.

Even in terms of things falling apart -- entropy drives structures as much as their dissolution. But what we face daily? If it is a structure it's at least not obvious that it maps to entropy. In a sense I can interpret what I face entropically, but it's just one way of looking at what I face.

Just for context, I don't count myself as an antinatalist. I'm also not a pro-natalist. I'm nothin' -- I'm a stone-hearted analyst in this context, fascinated by the social logic involved.

What is it about this "nod" to being that people seem to be programmed for? — schopenhauer1

The positive motive is something like : ...the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life...

The nurturing instinct can be included in the lust of the flesh, though this'll be offensive to some.

The negative motive is fear of injury, fear of death.

We don't need to be programmed with a conscious ideology, right ? Though at another level the church might come in and keep birth rates high for an empire that needs workers and soldiers.

In a sense I can interpret what I face entropically, but it's just one way of looking at what I face. — Moliere

Im thinking more along these lines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

I agree with the sentiment but contend the particular point. Are humans "hard-wired" to have children or are we a more complex (albeit still animal) that have an existential nature to it? — schopenhauer1

Are you talking about philosophical types or just humans generally? I can see the point of not breeding, particularly now the way the world looks like going. I would not want to have children at this point in human history because I would then be condemned to worry about how they were going to cope with what inevitably seems to be coming. But I never had any desire for kids anyway; I'm too selfish, absorbed as I have always been in my own pursuits and obsessions.

I certainly don't regret being alive. On balance I would count my life as a definite positive. It is a well-worn cliche that thinking too much will bring misery, and that is probably the view of a majority of humans, who don't experience their lives overall as miserable, and like to cling to the illusions that too much thinking might dispell. Maybe it's down to brain chemistry; those low in seratonin have a negative, depressive view on life, and those with abundant seratonin feel life is good.

I know how miserable life has seemed for me at times a day or two after taking MDMA, and this is attributable to seratonin depletion. Selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors are given to people who suffer chronic depression. If you try to imagine how life would seem if you always felt good, you might be able to understand and acknowledge that your perspective of life as misery says much more about you than anything else.

I would say that procreation can certainly have value, just as life-extension and exploring the esoteric aspects of life do. — Existential Hope

I agree with you. I mean that from a 'greedy' personal perspective it may be good to experience parenthood. Especially these days, with our technology, and especially if you are rich. Joyce is one of my heroes, and the family man experience is useful to a writer in its near universality. But the nonfamily men buy books too, I guess -- maybe more books on average.

'The life of the child is the death of the parent' gestures towards the life cycle to me. Schop liked to talk about insects dying after mating, their purpose served. He really had his eye on the centrality of sex and death. The mating instinct and the nurturing instinct tie us to life, along with narcissist/status projects, some of which are probably delusory escapes from annihilation.