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. — plaque flag

I would say that people of all economic backgrounds can benefit from being able to raise a person, witness their journey, and help them become a better person. Although there undoubtedly are many selfish parents, I wouldn't say that it is impossible to wish to procreate because you want others to experience the positives of life. If this is still greedy or selfish, rhen I would argue that not procreating is also selfish. After all, non-existent beings have no need to not be created.

Schopenhauer, predictably, had a negative interpretation of the life cycle—one thar I don't agree with. It can also be seen as a symbol of continuity. If it were the case that not procreating bestowed a significantly longer life upon someone, ae would definitely find ourselves in an interesting situation. However, since this is not necessarily the case, the life of the child can also be the life of the parent (as, at least in the case of humans, it can give them a purpose that keeps despair at bay). Generation possesses the capacity to transcend annihilation.

I hope that you will have a beautiful day!

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. — plaque flag

I am not a universal pro/anti natalist either. I believe that procreation can be ethically justifiable, but it is not obligatory.

I certainly don't regret being alive. — Janus

I'm just going to give response I gave to apokrisis:

Don't assume other should fight the entropy. If only everyone had MY point of view. How narcissistic. I like X, therefore others should like live out a lifetime of X. — schopenhauer1

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. — Janus

But that's not the ethical point. If it was as simple of you like vanilla and I like chocolate, than this wouldn't be ethical. Rather, it is making decisions for others, and this becomes ethical, political, and existential. The way you are flippantly making it about preferences, belies the grave ethical import.

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

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. — plaque flag

Going back to enthalpy, why create more work for people because you have happy moments? That is the biggest con of an argument. We have the power to not throw people into the enthalpic process.

It is paternalistic thinking. "I know that someone else should deal with burdens of survival". Imagine that in almost any other context as a fully functioning adult?

Maybe there is some chemicals deluding people but it is very much reinforced culturally. As you said:

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. — plaque flag

Perhaps it's even more perverse than that. Having just enough happy experiences makes it seem justifiable to do for another. Happy workers, happily working, in their happy projects.

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. — plaque flag

It doesn't have to be human.

It doesn't have to be human. — Sumyung Gui

I once thought of a sci-fi plot where the heroes set out to eliminate all sentience as an act of mercy, their assumption being that awareness was essentially negative.

Perhaps it's even more perverse than that. Having just enough happy experiences makes it seem justifiable to do for another. Happy workers, happily working, in their happy projects. — schopenhauer1

To me the trickiest part is the evaluation of life. Life is good or life is bad -- this is like music.

I like the idea of a gentle and effective suicide pill. Perhaps the state could provide a nice incineration shoot, equivalent to the painless version of jumping into a volcano. I believe that most people would not use this option while they were lucky ( healthy, in good relationships, safe-ish), so that life is often judged (tacitly) to be a positive good. Personally I'm still invested in this game, though I do dread the ravages of further aging in the long run. I the idea of choosing the right moment for one's death -- embracing the beauty of it. I'm down with Kevorkian.

Going back to enthalpy, why create more work for people because you have happy moments? That is the biggest con of an argument. We have the power to not throw people into the enthalpic process. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure we do have the power. A minority may have a certain self-image and the motivation to abstain, but I don't believe in free will. What's possible is, to some degree, proven by what actually happens. It's easier to talk about utopia or a cessation of birth than to bring such a situation about. It's as if individuals are always only fragments of human nature. Even individuals speak only for or as mere fragments of themselves. 'Finite' personality (which excludes and opposes other finite personalities) is a kind of mask or front.

To me the trickiest part is the evaluation of life. Life is good or life is bad -- this is like music.

I like the idea of a gentle and effective suicide pill. Perhaps the state could provide a nice incineration shoot, equivalent to the painless version of jumping into a volcano. I believe that most people would not use this option while they were lucky ( healthy, in good relationships, safe-ish), so that life is often judged (tacitly) to be a positive good. Personally I'm still invested in this game, though I do dread the ravages of further aging in the long run. I the idea of choosing the right moment for one's death -- embracing the beauty of it. I'm down with Kevorkian. — plaque flag

I was explaining how the the first written myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh, spoke of gods who were pissed at all the noise the humans made so flooded the Earth. Why do people want to create the din of noise? We can't be quiet?

I'm not sure we do have the power. A minority may have a certain self-image and the motivation to abstain, but I don't believe in free will. What's possible is, to some degree, proven by what actually happens. It's easier to talk about utopia or a cessation of birth than to bring such a situation about. It's as if individuals are always only fragments of human nature. Even individuals speak only for or as mere fragments of themselves. 'Finite' personality (which excludes and opposes other finite personalities) is a kind of mask or front. — plaque flag

Why do you think people lack sufficient free will enough?

Why do you think people lack sufficient free will enough? — schopenhauer1

So much could be said here, but we can talk about pork. Do we really need it ? Are pigs treated decently in order to make it ? I guess I'm cynical. We are not fundamentally rational and righteous creatures. I look on YouTube and see the resentment industrial complex. These fuckers are professionally outraged, like the guy with the glass to his throat in that Black Mirror episode.

I gotta name for the type : the politician. It's not just folks actually seeking election but the personality type ('finite') that earnestly brings a narrative of the good versus the bad. Spengler called the general structure ethical socialism, by which he meant the evangelical assumption. Whatever the Good or Truth may be, it's our duty to spread the word. Right or wrong, Spengler thought that some ancient philosophers just 'offered counsel.' I'm personally interested in the 'muted post horn' as graffiti hinting at 'infinite' or 'undecided/undecidable' personality. Antinatalism puts the birthmania into question (offering a counterpolitics, just as earnest.) But there's also the putting of the spirit of seriousness into question, along with the assumption something can and must be done ---one of course does not preach this putting into question, for that would be a misunderstanding --hence graffiti and gallowshumor.

I'm not quite following what you are saying. I think you have some interesting ideas but I can't seem to link them together. It seems something to do with evangelistic outrage.

You also suggest not being serious perhaps? E.M. Cioran I think represents a gallow's humor sort of approach to AN. Thomas Ligotti is very dark, and depressing, but he couches it in basically saying it's just his opinion. Schopenhauer was serious, but his aphorisms had some humor. I'd say it is serious in that people are seriously affected by birth and suffering. So the stakes are high, no?

It seems something to do with evangelistic outrage. — schopenhauer1

Yes. There's also a psychonanalytic theme here. The 'surface' of a personality is a mask or a performance. The finite personality depends on what it excludes for its value. If the Cause succeeds, I lose my heroic role, the very meaning structure of my life.

E.M. Cioran I think represents a gallow's humor sort of approach to AN. — schopenhauer1

Yes, Cioran's tone is often exactly what I have in mind. Samuel Beckett is relevant too: nothing is funnier than unhappiness. Nietzsche writes of the festival of cruelty, ambivalently aware of our enjoyment of the spectacle of suffering and humiliation. Joyce brilliantly explores the enjoyment of one's own humiliation in Ulysses (cuckolding), akin to the self-vivisection of Nietzsche's introspective ascetic. This self-vivisector is an image of critical reason, of poisoning and poisoned Socrates, corrupter of youth, destroyer of comfortable platitudes. This is Nietzsche's Hamlet-like significance. He endlessly turns his knife on himself. He subverts himself, would rather be a buffoon than a pompous politician. He wants company on the endless dangerous road, like Whitman, rather than followers who, as followers, have already lost him. In short, I'm talking about Nietzsche (or Freud or Shakespeare or ...) as possibility rather than substance. We re-enact their heroic intentions, make it new, etc.

Schopenhauer was serious, but his aphorisms had some humor. — schopenhauer1

Yes. What is the nature of humor ? Is it a sly confession of ambivalence ? Of the pleasure we take in disaster ?

I'd say it is serious in that people are seriously affected by birth and suffering. So the stakes are high, no? — schopenhauer1

Sure. And gallowshumor references the situation of one about to die. Most of us care at least a little about strangers, but just about everyone cares intensely about their own death in the new few minutes.

I like this one:

At his public execution, the murderer William Palmer is said to have looked at the trapdoor on the gallows and asked the hangman, "Are you sure it's safe?"

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong to argue AN on a philosophy forum. Anonymity and the lack of funding is important here. The politician is a public performer who develops a persona as a brand. They win power, fame, and money from playing their role. It's in their interest, as persona product, to keep things comfortably finite and one-sided. Don't expect the politician to look into their own motives or discuss how nice it is to be famous and admired. To be sure, they'll have a sentimental yarn about their love for the oppressed, etc., which may indeed be part of the truth.

Yes. There's also a psychonanalytic theme here. The 'surface' of a personality is a mask or a performance. The finite personality depends on what it excludes for its value. If the Cause succeeds, I lose my heroic role, the very meaning structure of my life. — plaque flag

Heroic roles indeed. I see what you're saying. But can there be more of a communal commiseration aspect to it rather? Like, "I see this, does anyone else see this? Isn't this crazy?!". It is why people join groups and communities, but these are communities about existence itself, something so holistic that many don't want to face it. They rather therapy to be individualistic, about their ego and how they move about in the world, not the human condition tout court.

He wants company on the endless dangerous road, like Whitman, rather than followers who, as followers, have already lost him. In short, I'm talking about Nietzsche (or Freud or Shakespeare or ...) as possibility rather than substance. We re-enact their heroic intentions, make it new, etc. — plaque flag

Indeed, heroism dies through tedium. Hence the subversion of Tedious Warrior.

Yes. What is the nature of humor ? Is it a sly confession of ambivalence ? Of the pleasure we take in disaster ? — plaque flag

Humor in the Horror. I think that's always been associated to some extent. It's a way to help cope.

The politician is a public performer who develops a persona as a brand. They win power, fame, and money from playing their role. It's in their interest, as persona product, to keep things comfortably finite and one-sided. Don't expect the politician to look into their own motives or discuss how nice it is to be famous and admired. To be sure, they'll have a sentimental yarn about their love for the oppressed, etc., which may indeed be part of the truth. — plaque flag

Oh yeah for sure, good points on the public performer. It's more an industry they have created for themselves, not trying to create real dialogue.

I was explaining how the the first written myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh, spoke of gods who were pissed at all the noise the humans made so flooded the Earth. Why do people want to create the din of noise? We can't be quiet? — schopenhauer1

I love this part of the story by the way. Freud might relate it to the death drive. Let's all just go to sleep.

The answer to your question might be simple. Such a trait, a preference for Silence, would remove itself from the gene pool. It can only linger on the margins as a kind of parasite or stowaway, possibly serving the Noise party in the long run.

But can there be more of a communal commiseration aspect to it rather? Like, "I see this, does anyone else see this? Isn't this crazy?!". — schopenhauer1

Totally, and I think Beckett's work is part of that. He's grimly hilarious. He's willing to face the horror, describe it, while also acknowledging the part of us that's addicted to it. He's got one sad hobo character who invents a complicated ritualistic system of sucking stones and moving them from pocket to pocket. He describes this system in hilarious detail. To me the 'muted post horn' or 'open storm thud' (as I've also seen it, a sneaky anagram) is a little piece of tragicomical graffiti. In the shadows of the Resentment Industrial Complex, riding like a parasite, is a little symbol of the undecidable undecided infinite.

'Does anyone else see through all the simple-minding bullshit that drowns out almost everything ?'

'Does anyone else confess the complexity and ambivalence and ambiguity of our situation ? Or is everyone just a false doctor with a snake oil cure, looking for clicks and clams ? '

For more on the post horn theme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crying_of_Lot_49

The answer to your question might be simple. Such a trait, a preference for Silence, would remove itself from the gene pool. It can only linger on the margins as a kind of parasite or stowaway, possibly serving the Noise party in the long run. — plaque flag

I do like the poetic imagery of the Silence vs. Noise party. Ties into my other thread on being and becoming. But we come back to this difference we have where you see inevitability in what I tend to see as simply ignoring, anchoring, and denying. A child has an injury and the whole world has to know that it feels pain. A child is lonely and it complains loudly to its parents or anyone in earshot. An adult apparently does this by creating more humans and giving themselves something to do. We can't handle quietude. Meditation is had in small doses, at retreats, to rejuvenate. The idea of quieting in its ultimate sense of living off of nothing and just dying out slowly, of course, is not part of this.

In that case, balance is the shady subversive word used. Thus one is quieting to become better at the parts that are not quiet. It is not to diminish one's need for need. It is another self-improvement strategy to live in the world of noise. It's not gnosis, its simply routine like the health-shake, exercise routine, etc. In the end, it makes you a better worker. The fast is now a diet because it creates a better lifestyle choice.

They rather therapy to be individualistic, about their ego and how they move about in the world, not the human condition tout court. — schopenhauer1

There's plenty of 'politicians,' though, who attack apolitical ironists as escapists. 'Ethical socialism.' The rule is grand social issues, the spirit of seriousness. "I am a serious and respectable public intellectual commenting on The Serious Issues of the Day. "

"I am a serious and respectable public intellectual commenting on The Serious Issues of the Day. " — plaque flag

Still not what I'm talking about though. Social issues and existential issues are not the same, and perhaps even a bit opposed.

In that case, balance is the shady subversive word used. Thus one is quieting to become better at the parts that are not quiet. It is not to diminish one's need for need. It is another self-improvement strategy to live in the world of noise. It's not gnosis, its simply routine like the health-shake, exercise routine, etc. — schopenhauer1

The balance involved is thermodynamic or biological. Game theory dictates that counterculture is a parasite. In my opinion, the free will thing is roughly a misleading illusion. The culture of responsibility itself emerged as a faster way to get the coal out of the hills and burn it.

Perhaps I embrace the fatalism in Schopenhauer more than you do. When I was studying Darwin, Dawkins, and Dennett, I had Schopenhauer in mind. These evolutionary thinkers vindicate and naturalize his insights, making them stronger and less sentimental. I took from them an even harsher brew (those offensive 'moist robots,' slavishly serving the machine-cold code with mathematical necessity.)

I'll be impressed if humans stop eating pork because it's Ethical to do so. Asking them to stop breeding is on another level entirely.

Still not what I'm talking about though. Social issues and existential issues are not the same, and perhaps even a bit opposed. — schopenhauer1

There is something special about AN. I agree.

As I see it, antinatalism is extremely unlikely to succeed, become popular. Is that how you see it ?

Oh yeah for sure, good points on the public performer. It's more an industry they have created for themselves, not trying to create real dialogue. — schopenhauer1

Right. And, to be fair, they may be truly invested in or identified with their finite-exclusive personality. We can hide from our terrible ambivalence in the illusion of being simply virtuous, projecting the repressed on others. 'Whatever is unconscious is projected.' Joyce has his universal figure split into opposing sons in Finnegans Wake. We wear the mask not only for others but also for the mirror.

There's an old meme about the paralysis that comes with too much vision. What keeps the rat on the wheel ?

Perhaps I embrace the fatalism in Schopenhauer more than you do. When I was studying Darwin, Dawkins, and Dennett, I had Schopenhauer in mind. These evolutionary thinkers vindicate and naturalize his insights, making them stronger and less sentimental. I took from them an even harsher brew (those offensive 'moist robots,' slavishly serving the machine-cold code with mathematical necessity.) — plaque flag

I get it for sure. Schopenhauer did have that idea of "inevitability of our programming" idea.

But I think Zapffe counteracts the determinism in a way. He psychologizes it rather than mechanizes it. In other words, it is learned, cultural, a defense mechanism perhaps, but one that can be unlearned by knowing about it in the first place. "Oh, mea culpa, I am just throwing up a defense mechanism by ignoring, denying, and anchoring".

As I see it, antinatalism is extremely unlikely to succeed, become popular. Is that how you see it ? — plaque flag

It depends on measure of success, but I don't see the idea catching on. Working and consuming seems to be the ethos/reality of the day. Travel and "balance" is I guess the ideal/religion. Antinatalism disrupts that vision. If anything, childfree for lifestyle choice would be much more attractive than the idea that we must prevent suffering. As you indicate here:

I'll be impressed if humans stop eating pork because it's Ethical to do so. Asking them to stop breeding is on another level entirely. — plaque flag

Caring about suffering in the abstract is not our strong point. We rather create the suffering and then mitigate than not create it. I am not sure how to get around this habitual way of thinking. As long as we can disconnect cause and effect because it is inconvenient, we will do so because we can't live with such cognitive dissonance of knowing and doing, so denial and vehement dismissal is the only way to react if confronted with it.

Also quietude makes us sad-face. The blankness, the blackness, the void. It gives some sort of anxiety of non-being. It reminds me of this:

In the depths of a programme, there can be efficiency and wonder that provides something beyond the universal essentials. An anchor to a consequential hope can lead to the materialisation of a genuine good. But this should not translate to untrammelled consumerism.

I don't appreciate the "vision" of multiplying expectations, even if I would prefer the disruption to come from a nuanced understanding of life.

In the end, we will, hopefully, continue to create happiness and passionately defend the positive. The significance of the cause certainly should not be downplayed as the effect (the provenance of which may lie in the abstract realm) is intimately connected to the joys of life.

When the inner light is not extinguished, external sources of succour become less urgent.

But I think Zapffe counteracts the determinism in a way. He psychologizes it rather than mechanizes it. In other words, it is learned, cultural, a defense mechanism perhaps, but one that can be unlearned by knowing about it in the first place. "Oh, mea culpa, I am just throwing up a defense mechanism by ignoring, denying, and anchoring". — schopenhauer1

I tend to see one myth displacing another. It's not that we get beyond orienting metaphors and heroic roleplay (defense mechanisms). We just (hopefully) trade up. To me Freud (for instance) is an instance of the archetype that might be called the hero of consciousness, which goes back to shamanism. Zapffe is a version too.