So at what point does anti-natalism become just another social interest group telling me what I should think?

As an evangelist, do you believe you have “the truth” on your side? Yours is the view I simply must follow, and not some more generally held view in society? — apokrisis

You would have a point if natalism and antinatalism were symmetrical- but they’re not. Antinatalism at the end of the day is an ethic/philosophy that you can take or leave. Natalism advocates for forced conversion.

Natalism advocates for forced conversion. — schopenhauer1

Source?

Source? — apokrisis

Anyone birthed.

Unfortunately, it's worse.
Natalism is a population ethic concept, whereas AN doesn't apply to that set of concerns/issues. Using 'Natalism' as an ethical argument toward any small group, or individual is completely inapt and inhumane (largely).

Anyone birthed. — schopenhauer1

What does that mean? You were birthed. Does that force you to be a natalist?

Use whatever word you want for wanting others to live out X way of life. Pro-birth, procreationists, etc.

What does that mean? You were birthed. Does that force you to be a natalist? — apokrisis

You're reading backwards. Any parent that forces a child into life is 'Natalist' on that account there, but Schop is wrong about what Natalism is. He's wrong in his recent reply too, because that particular attitude is not capturing Natalism.

What does that mean? You were birthed. Does that force you to be a natalist? — apokrisis

I mean that at the end of the day antinatalists don’t force a way of life unto others. Natalists (or whatever term you’d like to use for it), de facto lead to forced outcomes for others. They want to see someone else live out X and they make it happen. They force the hand.

He's wrong in his recent reply too, because that particular attitude is not capturing Natalism. — AmadeusD

I already said you can use what term you’d like.

They want to see someone else live out X and they make it happen. They force the hand. — schopenhauer1

Not true. Natalism is a population ethic concern and has to do with population growth. We no longer need people to 'have children' to grow the population. This 'guilt' can be lumped on a singular social functionary: The doctor.

I already said you can use what term you’d like. — schopenhauer1

Ok. But you're talking about an established population ethics concept. It would be more reasonable for me to say "pick a different term". THe one you've chosen is taken.

Ok. But you're talking about an established population ethics concept. It would be more reasonable for me to say "pick a different term". THe one you've chosen is taken. — AmadeusD

Cool. Again, I don’t care what term is used here. I’m aware of natalism as a population ethic term.

Using 'Natalism' as an ethical argument toward any small group, or individual is completely inapt and inhumane (largely). — AmadeusD

Any ethical argument that pushes for monistic absolutism is going to be inhumane just in denying that humans are organised by dialectical balances. We have to have complementary limits in mind so we can arrive at the choices that are the most optimal – the most win-win – that can be achieved.

@schopenhauer1 creates a caricature "natalist" to match his caricatured anti-natalism. He constantly encounters folk who indeed seem exactly like his imagined natalists as that is what anyone would be driven to by his monomaniac peddling of the an anti-natalist agenda.

To me, whether to have or not have kids was always in the balance. It was easy enough to see that it would be irresponsible of me to have them to the degree the risk was strongly in the direction of a lose-lose outcome. And so also perfectly responsible to the degree the chances were of a win-win outcome.

That's real life lived in an ethical and humane fashion where things happen. Not a life lived in terms of catastrophising absolutes.

I mean that at the end of the day antinatalists don’t force a way of life unto others. Natalists (or whatever term you’d like to use for it), de facto lead to forced outcomes for others. — schopenhauer1

So you positively want to stop me having babies and I don't feel particularly strongly about whether you do or not. I only feel strongly about you being suitably thoughtful about this important choice. I'm perfectly fine if you decide the proposition is a lose-lose in your circumstances.

And yet for some reason your feelings about my procreation are what must be the case here? You have decided that all births are only a losing story? And that is what must be forced on me? And now on my own children too? You will be chasing after my descendants til the end of time with your philosophy?

Natalism is a population ethic concern and has to do with population growth. — AmadeusD

In practice, societies sometimes want more kids, sometimes fewer. Not sure that any society was ever blindly natalist, or even anti-natalist, in the way schop requires. But certainly a society would want to send its people a clear signal about the average target number it is seeking for demographic reasons.

Turn the tap on. Turn the tap off. The current direction must be made clear even if aiming at a responsible balance is the ultimate goal.

So you positively want to stop me having babies and I don't feel particularly strongly about whether you do or not. I only feel strongly about you being suitably thoughtful about this important choice. I'm perfectly fine if you decide the proposition is a lose-lose in your circumstances.

And yet for some reason your feelings about my procreation are what must be the case here? You have decided that all births are only a losing story? And that is what must be forced on me? And now on my own children too? You will be chasing after my descendants til the end of time with your philosophy? — apokrisis

The operative word is "forced" here. That is exactly my point. Antinatalism's main gripes revolve around causing others unnecessary suffering and the fact that something as important a decision can never be consented. Procreationists/natalists want to see a FORCED outcome for other people. Antinatalism has no outcome as such. And we can go in circles about consent (and I would make arguments why this is different than getting shots or educating children or government taxes or whatever other strawmen that I've seen about that thousands of times before.. at that point, I'll just pull up the old comments). The point for THIS conversation (again trying to avoid previous debates surrounding consent or "forced"), is that precisely the claim you are making about antinatalism, is what anti-antinatalists are doing- that is to say, "FORCING" others. I claim that procreation is a political move. It is VOTING on ANOTHER'S BEHALF that one must carry out X.

So quite literally, antinatalists cause no FORCE, simply propose arguments while pro-procreation people quite literally FORCE situations upon others. So it is the natalists that cause the force, not the other way around.

You would have a point if natalism and antinatalism were symmetrical- but they’re not. — schopenhauer1

They are not because "natalism" is not an ideology or doctrine or dogma –"unlike antinatalism. Natality is a biological function that animals can prevent or terminate. Having been born does not in any way entail procreating. Thus, "antinatalism". (i.e. natality : antinatalism :: mortality : denialism¹)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism [1]

They are not because "natalism" is not an ideology or doctrine or dogma –"unlike antinatalism. Natality is a biological function that animals can prevent or terminate. Having been born does not in any way entail procreating. Thus, "antinatalism". (i.e. natality : antinatalism :: mortality : denialism¹) — 180 Proof

Natality isn't. I said to use whatever term you want for it.

creates a caricature "natalist" — apokrisis

Agree.

caricatured anti-natalism — apokrisis

I think you're wrong, so I can't agree here. Your objections are linguistic in nature and do not affect his actual reasoning (though, I think he's not clear on his own tbh).

Not sure that any society was ever blindly natalist, or even anti-natalist, in the way schop requires. — apokrisis

They have, but under weird guises like 'economy' when in reality, they wanted a bigger army or whatever. It's never been a bare goal though, I'd cop to that.

unlike antinatalism. — 180 Proof

"troll someone else". Caricature of a thinker.

???

Antinatalism's main gripes revolve around causing others unnecessary suffering and the fact that something as important a decision can never be consented. — schopenhauer1

Well these gripes are covered by it being a responsibly-informed decision. You have to catastrophise the average life to make life itself seem always an intolerable burden and thus never justified in its starting.

Your argument collapses right there. Exactly where there are those of us who are indeed quite glad to have had the chance to be born and live out a life even if we failed to sign the correct legal papers in advance of the fact.

Procreationists/natalists want to see a FORCED outcome for other people. — schopenhauer1

People can want to have children. It is perfectly natural. And they take responsibility for their choices. Or at least that is where their ethical duty lies.

But you want to invent some kind of monstrous fertility cult taking perverted pleasure in producing miserable souls. Weird.

I claim that procreation is a political move. It is VOTING on ANOTHER'S BEHALF that one must carry out X. — schopenhauer1

Your hysteria rises. You want to take what is just an everyday part of most lives – a pragmatic decision about what suits some couple – and turn it into a legalistic, and now politicised, burden. Some kind of ballot rigging or election fraud for which a couple must be charged. Or at least shouted at in capital letters.

Again, do you accept that people are allowed make their own informed risk-reward choices or not? Are they allowed to express the potentials of their own bodies or do their preferences require your consent as the fertility police. The fertility police who will anyway only ever say no.

So quite literally, antinatalists cause no FORCE, simply propose arguments while pro-procreation people quite literally FORCE situations upon others. — schopenhauer1

But why do they get so shouty when told their argument is based on the false premise that life is inherently only for the worse, never for the better? That they would deny as many good lives as the bad lives they might hope to prevent.

If you polled a 1000 people – a proper cross-section of society – how many would say it would have been just better never to have been born than to have lived at all?

I would expect an antinatalist to at least be able to offer this data to show there was any kind of genuine consent issue.

This is one list of death bed regrets.

1) “I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.”
2) “I wish I hadn't worked so hard.”
3) “I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings.”
4) “I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.”
5) “I wish I had let myself be happier”

So at the end of the journey, the issue is not that the journey was started but that more could have been done in terms of personal growth.

If you want to have some grand position on ethics/politics/life, that seems a more fruitful focus for a conversation.

You have to catastrophise the average life to make life itself seem always an intolerable burden and thus never justified in its starting. — apokrisis

You really, really do not. Your position is that of most people, even one's aware of hte burden of living so there are no surprises here. Just, not a lot of analysis.

Your position is that of most people, even one's aware of hte burden of living so there are no surprises here. — AmadeusD

Given you find yourself alive, is it then better to have a positive or a negative mindset about that fact? Regardless of the "truth" that you might hope to find by an exhaustive analysis.

We can argue about which position would be more an illusion later.

But simply as pragmatics, is your situation going to be made better or worse if you believe your fate is in your own hands, or if you instead believe the hope has already gone?

Which ought to be our default mindset, all other things being equal?

Given you find yourself alive, is it then better to have a positive or a negative mindset about that fact? — apokrisis

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first (i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with). In the meantime, I think I can address the question your asking, noting it is a non sequitur from defending/objecting to AN.

is your situation going to be made better or worse if you believe your fate is in your own hands, or if you instead believe the hope has already gone? — apokrisis

I don't think the question is that easy. Having one's fate in one's own hands seems to overwhelm (literally) the majority of people to psychosis.

I don't think any mindset 'ought'. That seems an extreme move to make.

i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with — AmadeusD

AN would be the aesthetic pose in my book. I prefer to move on to the pragmatic meat of the issue of whether to have children. And how to approach life in general.

Having one's fate in one's own hands seems to overwhelm (literally) the majority of people to psychosis. — AmadeusD

Hyperbole.

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first — AmadeusD

Checking your comments on the other AN thread, I can explain better. You were arguing as if the “higher consciousness” of humans were something neurobiological rather than sociocultural. This makes a difference.

If you believe that human self awareness - our feeling of being a self and thus able to suffer in an existential sense - is something neurobiological, then that is something that can’t be fixed by a psychological intervention. Therapy can’t address the source of the distress.

But if instead you understand human consciousness as a socially constructed habit of thought - one based on the narrative power of language and society’s need for us to be socially self-regulating - then you can see how the inner narrative is something that can quite authentically be rewritten.

This is the shift in mindset behind the positive psychology movement. A new style of therapy for helping people realise they have internalised certain scripts and, if they want, they can rewrite them to better suit their own lives.

This addresses the five death bed regrets I mentioned. The fact that people felt their life was alright but really they should have made it more their own life. They shouldn’t have lived it so much in terms of what their parents, peers, employers, etc, felt it should be.

So we are not rooted psychologically in the deeper soil of our emotions and values. These are often just attitudes and frames that we grew up surrounded by and thus became merely our unthinking habits.

This makes all the difference. If we have a negative mindset, why not learn instead to have a positive one.

It is not the “gift of life” that is our unconsented burden. It is the attitudes we were surrounded by that could be the reason for a life of burden and suffering. That which we could not help internalising as it was how we were treated, the circumstances of our early rearing. But that which we can grow out if we have a clearer idea about how the human mind is shaped.

If you polled a 1000 people – a proper cross-section of society – how many would say it would have been just better never to have been born than to have lived at all?

I would expect an antinatalist to at least be able to offer this data to show there was any kind of genuine consent issue. — apokrisis

While I am not a committed antinatalist, I'm not sure about the relevance of this objections.

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion, that 99,99% of people are relly happy of their life, despite the fact that death is inevitable, the tragedies that have happened and so on.
There is still the 0,01%, however, that would prefer to 'have never been born'. Their perspective is not 'wrong' only because they are a minority.

Let's say that it there is a vanishing small probability that a human being might prefer to 'have never been born'.
Then, when parents decide to give birth to a human being, they are doing this by accepting the chance, however small, that, in fact, such a human being might regret have been born. Let's say that we do accept that it is indeed a tragedy that someone wil regret his or her life.

Is it really morally acceptable to 'take this risk' for someone else, however small it might be because it is 'small'?
Is it morally acceptable for me to 'give birth' on the chance that my son or my daughter might be unsatisfied with his or her life? If his or her life is good for someone else, even for many people let's say, but would turn out to not be good for his or her, is it morally acceptable for me to give birth?

@schopenhauer1

There is still the 0,01%, however, that would prefer to 'have never been born'. Their perspective is not 'wrong' only because they are a minority. — boundless

So because of this round up error, humanity should end itself forthwith as some kind of supreme ethical act?

:chin:

So because of this round up error, humanity should end itself forthwith as some kind of supreme ethical act? — apokrisis

Well, I see what you mean. But the decision is not taken by 'humanity' but by individual human beings in their singularity.

If I am not certain that my son or my daughter will be happy, it seems to me that I am accepting a possible tragedy (his or her regret for having been born) as an acceptable price for some good, which is external for them. If I am 'justifying' his or her life (which he or she might not see as a 'good' for him or her) as a mean to a possible 'higher good', it seems that I accept to treat him or her as a mean to an end (let's say also that his or her actions benefit for many people, but they do not percieve any good from that).
I am wrong?

I am very conflicted about this issue, anyway. I am not an antinatalist but IMO this is the strongest argument for it.

Also: is there a percentage under which it is 'acceptable' to take the risk? And, in case, what is the justification for this threshold?

Edit:

If I am not certain that my son or my daughter will be happy, it seems to me that I am accepting a possible tragedy (his or her regret for having been born) as an acceptable price for some good, which is external for them. If I am 'justifying' his or her life (which he or she might not see as a 'good' for him or her) as a mean to a possible 'higher good', it seems that I accept to treat him or her as a mean to an end (let's say also that his or her actions benefit for many people, but they do not percieve any good from that). — boundless

Of course, here I am assuming that this 'regret' is something irreversible, i.e. that this human being would regret to 'have been born' and would not change his or her mind.

But the decision is not taken by 'humanity' but by individual human beings in their singularity. — boundless

Remember I have already agreed that one ought to make responsible choices. One can tell if one is really in a position to do a good job of it.

I’m not a natalist in the sense Schop pushes. I think it perfectly sensible not to have kids if you see a highly likelihood of things turning out bad. Climate change could be a good enough reason. Not liking responsibility could be another,

But antinatalism is claiming this transcendent principle that no chances should be taken at all. I don’t get to choose what is right for me in my circumstances. The antinatalist has assumed the ethical high ground that trumps any choice I might make. Which seems a little fascist.

It is not the “gift of life” that is our unconsented burden. It is the attitudes we were surrounded by that could be the reason for a life of burden and suffering. That which we could not help internalising as it was how we were treated, the circumstances of our early rearing. But that which we can grow out if we have a clearer idea about how the human mind is shaped. — apokrisis

So it is THIS mindset you speak which I think to be an exemplar of the root of the ethical dilemma AN brings up, at least in the deontological sense.

For deontologists, it would be wrong to use people. Birth uses the person who will be born to fulfill a need of the parent. The person did not exist in the first place to need anything. Rather, the person being born is purely for reasons outside the person themselves.

And thus, thus boundless was right here to say:

If I am 'justifying' his or her life (which he or she might not see as a 'good' for him or her) as a mean to a possible 'higher good', it seems that I accept to treat him or her as a mean to an end (let's say also that his or her actions benefit for many people, but they do not percieve any good from that).
I am wrong? — boundless

And thus the house of cards that the pro-natalists puts up crumbles from there. Causing unnecessary harm to someone else, didn't need to occur. Breaking non-autonomy principles to cause unnecessary harm, all the worse.

And then these arguments below end up being hollow strawmen because the AN is not making these claims:

Again, do you accept that people are allowed make their own informed risk-reward choices or not? Are they allowed to express the potentials of their own bodies or do their preferences require your consent as the fertility police. The fertility police who will anyway only ever say no. — apokrisis

But antinatalism is claiming this transcendent principle that no chances should be taken at all. I don’t get to choose what is right for me in my circumstances. The antinatalist has assumed the ethical high ground that trumps any choice I might make. Which seems a little fascist. — apokrisis

The antinatalist is providing a suggested ethic, and giving you reasons such as not causing unnecessary suffering, not using people, not breaking non-autonomy principles. They are not forcing the situation. Pro-natalists actually advocate for forcing life unto others, and how is that not a little fascist? Antinatalists simply provide a strongly suggested ethic that you can take or leave. However, the pro-natalist action LITERALLY lasts a lifetime, and NOT on one's own behalf but for another person. You mentioned "fascism", how is THIS not controlling, dictatorial, and forceful- all markers of fascist regimes? Fascists have a vision of a "way of life", and want others to be forced to follow that vision. Pro-natalists also want to see a "way of life, and want others to be forced to follow that vision. And indeed, the issue becomes political as one stance does not force one's vision on another, and another's outcome surely does.

Then you suggest various forms of therapeutic balancing to ones that are already born. You say things like:

This is the shift in mindset behind the positive psychology movement. A new style of therapy for helping people realise they have internalised certain scripts and, if they want, they can rewrite them to better suit their own lives. — apokrisis

But the burden was already laid upon the person born. These now are mitigating what was already started (not prevented from happening). It is odd to provide the problem to someone only so that later they can mitigate it. Again, this strikes me as using people to follow a sort of game (life itself!) and thus wanting to see others maneuver in this game that YOU want to see FOR THEM. Again, how is this notion itself not dictatorial, forceful, and commanding- fascist? And if you don't like it the regime wants you dead or stricken from the record. How dare one question the regime, right? All hallmarks of fascist thinking.

For deontologists, it would be wrong to use people. — schopenhauer1

It might be relatively wrong but then also relatively right. You of course will do your usual mad thing of talking in exceptionless absolutes.