:lol:

Fortunately, the horse won't have to deal with unjustified arguments premised upon intuitions that haven't been adequately understood ;)

Anyhow, I appreciate your thought-provoking ideas. Thanks for giving me your precious time. May you have a wonderful day!

One could certainly "infer" it, but they would be irrational in doing so if they ignore the fact that there are also other factors that can support other inferences. Paying attention is definitely important, and a severe lack of it has been displayed here. Also, considering that my intuitions disagree with yours, I wouldn't want to be a "lazy sceptic" and deny "reason" ;)

Your analogy is problematic. In this case, one clearly has many reasons for avoiding the soup. Firstly, they know that bad food can make them sick which is clearly not good for them. No such evidence for the intrinsic badness of death exists. Secondly, the waiter, someone we presume to know exactly what the food is (as opposed to someone merely having some strong intuitions about the food that they never bothered to investigate), so it would be reasonable to trust them. The larger intuition that the bad soup should be avoided could be true. But it's exact nature could differ based upon our reasons, not all of which are rational.

1. I want to avoid the soup because I suddenly feel that it would transport me to hell. This makes little sense and is uncritical.

2. After having considered the clear possibility of illness and the fact that a waiter working in the restaurant surely knows the food there, I would want to avoid this soup because I do not want to incur significant harm. I could retain some of my health even if I had a bad but slightly less bad soup, and since I value my health, it would be rational for me to pick that option.

I am pretty sure that rational intuitions would drive us towards the latter choice.

A more appropriate analogy would be to consider a somewhat knowledgeable friend going with you to a restuarant that neither of you have ever visited before. You see an item labelled X on the menu and your friend immediately tells you to not eat the item because it would give you cancer. You ask your friend for reasons behind his claim and he replies that this is what he feels to be the case. Now, you could simply accept his claim at face value and perhaps abandon this restaurant that could potentially have excellent food. Or, you could start looking for evidence. Is there are evidence for some deadly food being served in your locality that immediately gives you cancer after being consumed once? Should I trust the word of my friend who, despite knowing a lot, still has little to no understanding of the food being served at the restaurant there? Ultimately, you could still decide to not eat the food, but this wouldn't be because you think that the food would give you cancer. It could merely be that you don't want to waste money on an unknown dish labelled X that you've never hears of and might not like the taste of. At worse, it could also make you sick.

What changed here was not the larger intuition of "avoiding the food", but the intuitions that were associated with it (that it would cause cancer) and consequently the reasons for going with that intuition (not wanting to waste money or become slightly I'll). Rational inquiry gave us reasons to not have a particular view about something whilst still considering it to be bad but to a different degree and for different reasons that did not have much to do with the intrinsic badness of the food (such as the purchase of the dish being a waste of money).

In my opinion, it's necessary to realise that:
1. Not all strong intuitions are correct. Good examples of this include our ancestors' fear of natural phenomena as being acts of divine punishment.

2. We could retain that overall instinct but for vastly different reasons (avoid thunder in case it hits you and causes you immense pain instead of running away from it due to a belief that it would condemn us to hell or something). Additionally, we could discard the parts of it that we know to be indefensible based upon the evidence we possess.

The difference remains vital and potent, irrespective of whether or not people see it. Also, it's peculiar to talk so favourably about certain intuitions (such as death being bad) whilst going against others (like reproduction and life being good). Arguments for antinatalism frequently involve such arbitrary double standards.

Not everybody shares the intuition that death alters us and brings us to a terrible state of affairs. If you want to accuse countless people's intuitions and rational faculties of being corrupt, then you're the one who needs to justify that claim. Prevarication and obfuscation won't help as far as that is concerned.

"Reason" does not tell us that death itself alters our being or is a terrible hellish dimension. Perhaps it does to you but that's a separate matter. Not everything is how it appears to be, because the information that we have with us also alters our intuitions. As I've said before, when people did not understand our world that well, I am sure that it would have seemed quite sensible to think that solar eclipses were an evil phenomena or thunder was a supernatural intervention. Yet, greater understanding changed our perception and consequently our reason. We may still fear thunder, but probably because it could hit us or make us dead, not due to it being a divine/hellish force. Similarly, we may indeed have a reason to avoid death, but this reason need not involve perceiving non-existence as being something that alters our state. It could also be simply due to the fact that one's well-being lies in continuing to live instead of going out in a potentially painful way. Other reasons, such as actually thinking the void to be a horrible state are usually a result of external influence and ideas that we haven't delved into in a thorough manner (and you and I both know that most people are not comfortable with confronting their own mortality). As our experiences with other natural phenomena show, blindly trusting instincts we haven't critically thought about may not be the best idea. Lazy dogmatism is as problematic as lazy scepticism.

I've already mentioned ad nauseam that it's important to look into the nature of this intuition (alongside the nature of reality, and it does not give us evidence of a hell post existence). Once we do, it would become quite obvious that this intuition stems from a desire to avoid harm and preserve whatever good one's life does have. It's also formed due to societal influence, so the truth value of the intuition that nonexistence itself is bad is also doubtful, considering that it may be a larger result of nurture. Also, questioning how we know what we do is a fairly common thing in epistemology and philosophy as a whole. This does not mean that one has to doubt everything. They could rationally see that there is a particular instinct that they haven't really thought about. Then, they could look into the precise nature of that intuition (does it involve X, or something closely related to X?) and whether available evidence lines up with that intuition (such as whether or not there is a reason to think that there are people in painful altered states in inexistence). Finally, they can see that while that general intuition could have merit, it could also have flawed elements that can be discarded in favour of a more comprehensive understanding. I haven't even mentioned the fact (or maybe I have) that most people who do think about these issues do not seem have the intuition that death (the state itself) is something that alters us in a painful way as opposed to something that eradicates our being (which is what most people seem eager to avoid).

I've already provided the reasons innumerable times. I cannot read and understand them for someone else. This has become excessively circular. As ever, thanks for the discussion. Have a fantastic day!

Except that not all intuitions are rationally justifiable. There was once a time when people's intuitions would have told them that thunder was a punishment from the gods.

People whose idea of argumentation revolves around dismissing anything that does not fit their narrow framework don't seem to get very far. Whether or not they want that depends on them, of course.

I have already mentioned that the intuitions aren't merely about avoiding death in isolation. Investigating them in detail, one can see that pain and loss alongside a lack of thought regarding the nature of nonbeing (aside from societal influence) also play a role in the existence of these intuitions, which is why the idea that they hint towards the alleged "badness" of death is illogical. But as always, one can dismiss evidence that they are uncomfortable with.

I did not question reason or our ability to know things. I merely pointed out that not all of our reasons are adequately developed and neither do they necessarily have everything to do with a single factor instead of a bunch of factors. I also did not claim that the intuition to avoid death is "false", since it obviously involves pain and loss, both of which can be avoided rationally in light of our nature. My point was that the intuition does not have to include considering death itself being a horrible state of affairs, and a few justifications for this intuition might not be accurate.

Loss and gain are inevitable, but the former will be found in copious amounts with those who do not revise their views in light of reality (and there is no evidence for nonexistence being a terrible state of affairs other than a misunderstanding of intuitions). I remain grateful to you for sharing your valuable thoughts. As always, have a good day and best of luck for your future endeavours.

If you could realise that your own argument is premised upon people's intuitions and attitude towards death (which is something you indirectly referred to when you talked about people wanting to not die even if they have mediocre lives), you would have realised a long time ago that ignoring the crux of the matter does not help anybody. "Our reason tells us to do virtually anything to avoid it" does not delve into whether or not those reasons are justified and what is their precise nature. Yet, any attempt to explain that has been brushed away by vacuous claims of me resorting to "human psychology". Since you've chosen to not look at this properly, there really is no point in this. Lack of focus must be a significant problem these days. Verily it is tragic, but it's not that surprising.
Anyway, hope you have a nice day.

:up:

Entropy does not entail that existence leads to hell anymore than it does that it eventually leads to heaven. As far as sentient beings are concerned, one could argue that it points to loss. But this doesn't mean that resilience and growth (particularly intellectual and emotional growth) aren't also sources of unfathomable joy that can be more than adequately valuable for an individual. Meaningful experiences can help us transcend suffering, as is the case with many people. Many of the happiest people I've met were those who didn't have a lot.

I clearly wrote "I don't think". Of course they do, and I disagree with that due to a lack of sufficient justification for that prevention. But I do agree that we need to address suffering urgently, which could definitely involve not creating more lives that would probably be negative.

I don't think that the law affects the possibility of joy and the meaning one could find in their life. The mere existence of decay does not negate the reality of the presence of order in the form of ineffably valuable experiences one could and does have. Therefore, I am afraid that your thoughts on the law (which does not aid your case) don't count.

Maybe or maybe not. However, I don't think that this would necessarily make the view a universal truth, because I don't think that the prevention of all happiness can be deemed ethical. But it would obviously be important to minimise harms as much as possible, and if things don't improve, then surely procreation as a whole would not be a good idea until they do.

Entropy does not entail that one cannot experience positives in their life, and even though chaos exists, I don't think that it outweighs the potency of order in all instances, at least as far as sentient beings are concerned. Chaos might seem inevitable, but I think that we will eventually find order amidst it as well ;)

Heaven might also be more inevitable than we realise, but perhaps the cycle is eternal. Anyway, I hope that the best version of the good can be manifested in the realm we currently reside :p

There was and there are different answers to be found, though people accept different ones ;)

The Earth is a slightly different matter, but I hope that we can continue to work together towards progress for all!

Death is not a portal to hell and universal antinatalism remains illogical, particularly in light of the fact that this thread has failed to provide adequate evidence for death being inherently bad other than resorting to the attitude and intuitions of people in a selective manner that ignores their motivations and degree of awareness regarding the nature of nonexistence. Some ideas can definitely involve less brains, which has some peculiar consequences.

No, I merely said that we seem to avoid X due to reasons that do not have much to do with X being something terrible in and of itself. It includes things that are pertinent to our current existence, including misconceptions, aversion to pain, and the presence of good in one's life. At this point, it's evident that you don't see the difference at all. Your entire argument for this purported badness of X comes from the way most people react in the face of X (such as the fact that even people with poor lives might want to avoid death). I only pointed out that this reaction has alternative and more plausible explanations (including fear of loss and pain) that don't entail X leading us to a horrible state of affairs, which we do not have any evidence for other than the opinions of some people who evidently feel strongly about this. It's strange that you fail to grasp this basic point. Nevertheless, I believe that this is the ineluctable conclusion that cannot be refuted by an apparent refusal to acknowledge it. The fact that our reason "tells us to virtually anything to avoid it" cannot be seen in isolation of:
1. Our biological instinct to survive and propagate.

2. Our aversion to harm that many of us associate with death. Some of it is due to the chance of pain, and some has to do with the ideas regarding cessation that are ingrained in us by society.

3. The value we place on our life which would be disrupted by a process of ending.

Instead of erroneously thinking that this is somehow ignoring the argument by talking about the psychology of people, the point is that this goes to show that our reason may not be entirely reliable and to the extent it is, it's not due to some unproven badness of the void.

Once again, you're the one who's confused because there's a difference between talking about the state of being dead and dying, which could be painful. Furthermore, the rational reason one has to avoid it (as opposed to mere opinions about it being a sort of hell) is not because it leads to a special form of hell, but because it could harm one's interests and lead to potential harm. Thus, having provided yet another reply that ignores the actual issue, you mistakenly continue to believe that you have justified your view. I am afraid that it's you who remain fundamentally confused in your thinking. The reality is different, I believe. One can only explain things to someone, but they cannot understand them for them. Anyway, I hope that you have a wonderful day!

I already did in my previous comments. The primary dispute was regarding the "best explanation part" (A1:P1) since as I have said innumerable times, the explanation is not the "best" one once we realise that the true reasons why people find death to be bad (pain, avoidance of a supposedly horrible void that we are implicitly made to believe in by our environment, the pursuit of valuable experiences) do not have as much to do with the reality of death as they do with our motivations and partial misconceptions. Of course, this does not mean that we do not have a reason to avoid dying. We cannot fundamentally alter what improves/degrades our well-being (and neither do we seem to have some sort of obligation to do so). In light of this, if we find death to be a painful experience and something that negatively affects the good aspects of our life, it would obviously be a desideratum to avoid it. The crux of the matter is that this reason has more to do with the nature of our existence than it does with inexistence. Unnecessary elongation is not productive. As some people say, focus is quite important ;)


In all seriousness, I would like to thank you for this thought-provoking discussion and for sharing your insightful comments. Disagreements are but natural, and yet, inquisitive people like you can serve as a source of inspiration for many. I express my sincere apologies for any inappropriate/irrelevant remarks made by me. Thank you—for being there.

:victory:

No, it is not justified or sound. Having a reason to avoid something under some circumstances does not automatically entail that the thing itself is inherently bad as a state since there could also be other factors to consider.

I think you should heed your own advice (and perhaps include understanding in it too). I did not include "virtually", which I will. But, for all practical purposes, your comment did seem to imply that we have a reason to avoid death even if we are in pain, but many people themselves do not believe that. The cardinal point was that the reason is not that ubiquitous. It was not exactly an attempt to dispute the general fact that most do wish to avoid cessation.; rather, it was about the prevalence of such circumstances. Still, I think I could have phrased my reply better. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Anyway, the larger point remains: We simply do not have any reason to believe that death alters our state or is intrinsically bad for us. The justification that has been provided for it is premised upon a narrow and limited understanding of our motivations. You always say that we have to differentiate between something being preferred by us and something being true, but then your entire argument for the "badness" of death appears to rely upon most people's uncritical idea of death, their conflation of dying and death, and their predilection towards existing. I am not denying that most of us might have a reason to avoid dying. We cannot completely control our interests and there is no obligation to seek death/avoid it beyond the fulfillment/deprivation it could cause for an existing being. What I am rejecting is the notion that the reason has something to do with death "altering" us (since there is no evidence for that) instead of a few misconceptions and a potent desire to avoid pain and preserve joy (if the former is bad, the latter is obviously good, in my opinion. Focus is vital.

If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances,

That most lives are bad.

It is you who fails to understand that very difference, I am afraid. The premise that we have a reason to avoid death under every circumstance is dubious, and I do not think that we have any reason to believe that it "alters" our condition. Unfortunately, you are far too keen to merely indulge in repetition rather than substantiation.

I have already replied to your unjustified claims, my friend. Progress without openness is not possible. As far as the value/disvalue of death is concerned, a valueless state of affairs that does not affect our well-being in any manner seems unlikely to possess any meaningful characteristic. As for your claims:
"1. If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, including circumstances in which our lives are already sub-optimal in terms of their happiness to misery balance (up to a certain limit), the best explanation of this is that death harms us and harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse.
2. We have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances etc.
3. Therefore, death harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse."

1. We do not avoid our death under nearly all circumstances. There are clearly many people (including those with good lives) who do not find any value in their life and consequently wish to not exist. The fact that our life contains misery does not entail that people would want to lose the positive aspects of their life or partake in a potentially painful experience. It would also be pertinent to point out that people who are mostly suicidal and depressed could also experience moments where they want to live. Our motivations are quite nuanced, which is why discerning the "reason" for something can be a difficult task that requires looking at the world in a comprehensive manner.

2. We do have a reason (in terms of something being true) to avoid death insofar as it could result in unnecessary pain or lead to a cessation of our positive experiences. But this is not the case with all individuals. Furthermore, not all the reasons could be well thought out, such as an aversion to death that is a result of societal notions about nonbeing.

3. The reason does not entail that death alters our condition. Since no evidence/justification for this claim exists, it remains problematic.

Facts and preferences are not the same. Mathematical truths are verifiable and it would be strange if anybody feared them. We can also safely assume that most people understand their basics. However, this is not the same as death, since it is something that many people fear due to a multitude of reasons that may or may not be justifiable. As I have pointed out before, the possibility of pain is certainly a factor, and so is the idea that is often ingrained into us that nonbeing is something terrible (I do not think it is great or terrible). This means that many people choose to retain their mediocre existence which could still have some good over this supposedly horrible state of affairs. Furthermore, it is manifestly clear that anybody who desires to live would want to ensure that they do not have to face the prospect of its cessation. The point is that all of these elements combine together to give us reasons to avoid death and continue living, but they do not give us a reason to believe that death itself is negative.

Your OP is ... limited in more ways than you realise.

Well, I suppose they could say that people would clearly want to avoid hell as much as possible, not jump into it as soon as possible. But then one also has to remember the fact that there are people who seem far too eager to want to end an existence that's allegedly the only barrier between relief and something terrible. I don't think we have adequate reason to believe that their existence doesn't suggest that the void contains a heaven either. The reality, in my view, is that both of these views remain flawed because we don't have a reason to fear a valueless state of affairs that won't be harm/benefit an actual person. Whatever reasons we "think" we have are a result of many factors that I have mentioned before, such as our culture influencing our thoughts, our desire to continue appreciating the good of life, and also our need to avoid potential pain.

Considering that most people do seem to find immense value in their lives even in the face of harm, I don't think that it's justifiable to believe that all lives are mostly bad. This does not mean that there clearly are severe harms, and I hope that we can reduce them as much as possible.

Your posts have been rather convoluted. Elucidating distinctions is not a reflection of a misunderstanding of language, though the failure to understand that might be an interesting thing to consider. Your replies made it seem that you believe that we have a reason to avoid death because we wish to not die even if things are bad. This seemed to imply that we are averse to death. Apologies if I misunderstood you. If "reason" was referring to something being actually good/bad for us, I already said that I don't think that a valueless state (nonexistence) could have value/disvalue. But this does not mean that people could not find death to be problematic, since it obviously would be a troublesome idea for one who wants to continue living, or does not like the prospect of pain, or even has a sort of internal fear of nonbeing that they haven't fully investigated. Incomplete goals (that we tend to cherish as almost ethereal forces) and impact on loved ones could also be significant reasons. The point is that I don't think the widespread aversion to death gives us a reason to believe that death (the state of being dead) is bad (and neither would a proclivity towards nonexistence necessarily make it "good", but that's a separate matter). Our thoughts certainly don't determine what's what, including pessimistic ones that irrationally attempt to downplay the value of life ;)

I believe that I have challenged them and my points are quite pertinent, but of course, I could be wrong. Alternatively, there could be a fundamental lack of understanding here.

If possible, I would appreciate it if you could make it clear what you mean by "reason". Does "reason" mean that we have some arguments for believing that death is bad irrespective of what anybody thinks? So, it would be bad even if everybody wanted to die? Or does it mean that we appear to have certain concerns about death? Again, the latter has multiple explanations including fear and loss. It doesn't have much to do with the actual "badness" of death.

I used fear to refer to our aversion to death. I don't think that you are willing to look hard at the evidence at hand, my friend. Unless you realise that there are a myriad of reasons behind this aversion that don't necessarily point towards the actual badness of the event, progress would be illusory.

I don't think that our lives are bad overall, so I don't believe that procreation is always immoral. I don't deny that they could be.

Argument 2 is irrelevant because I don't think that death "alters" our condition and puts us in some terrible state of affairs.

I've already addressed argument 1 ad nauseam. We "believe" that we have a reason to avoid it. But this reason in itself is fuelled by multiple factors including a desire to avoid loss and pain. Just because one has certain negatives in their life it does not follow that they would want their being itself to end. They could have hopes (which they might not always be aware of) of improvement. And the societal influence of death being this terrible thing remains. Focus is definitely required if one seeks to look beyond a flawed framework.

I am afraid that Bartricks is (seemingly) incapable of understanding that we can be afraid of something because we don't want something of value to be lost. A "moderately miserable" life can also be partially good. This fear of loss exacerbated when one also considers the possibility of potential pain and the difficulty people have in imagining nonexistence. But this difficulty has nothing to do with the actual badness of death. One's inability to understand thunder does not automatically make it a satanic force. Confusion reigns supreme when assumptions remain unchallenged. By this logic, I suppose people who really want to die have good reasons to believe that they are going to heaven, which would make existence to be something good. However, neither of the aforementioned views are justifiable, in my view.

The oil spill example is also flawed. One could say that the burns harmed one's health and reduced their happiness, which is not good. The failure to see the movie is only a part of the loss. However, unlike this particular scenario, we do not have evidence to believe that nonexistence is painful. Our aversion to it is driven by a combination of a conflation of death and a painful dying process along with a desire to hold on to the things we cherish that we believe would be "lost" when we don't exist.

Indeed:) Acceptance will of course vary, but pertinent points of shared concern remain and need to be addressed by all.

The future can be more or less certain. I do think that there have been many goods throughout the past (and the avoidance of certain negative predictions, such as the ones made by Malthus) that can give reason for hope. However, considering that climate change and growing income disparity won't be fixed tomorrow, it surely makes more sense to think twice before taking the plunge and making a choice that won't be conducive to the welfare of people.

Guess I'll have to try out Tiktok now ;)

Many ways of losing it, some more subtle than others. Beginnings and endings are perpetual, but I hope that good ones are preferred.

In general, I do think that thoughtlessly creating beings without resolving some of our fundamental issues wouldn't be a good idea. In light of this, it would be better for people to not have children in circumstances where the outcome is likely to be a negative one.

There are people far wiser than me out there. I just hope I can gain a more nuanced understanding of their views and mould my own beliefs in a more rational manner. Thank you for your exceedingly kind words, but as I said before, I desire to acquire a more refined perspective.

I don't think that all of these individuals are misanthropic. They could indeed be driven by a strong sense of compassion for others. I would merely say that empathy and understanding can also extend to the positive aspects of life. People on our side might also rationalise without thinking about these issues in a thorough manner, which is something I hope will change for the better, since I do believe that existence can most certainly be justified. I am still grateful to everybody I've interacted for providing me with thought-provoking ideas to ponder over. I obviously have much to learn.

Yeah, I agree that people should not be pressurised to have children, and I think that doing so can often lead to more harm than good. Hope you have a great day!

:halo:

Indeed, and that is why it is wrong because good is also there.

Nobody has tried to find the positive value either.

I was referring to harm and good that would exist in the future, In other words, I was referring to the fact that the prevention of nonexistent harms does not justify the prevention of the creation of actual goods. Solely emphasising the elimination of harms isn't the sort of religion I would wish to follow ;) I have never said that actual pain (and happiness) do not matter. They obviously do, and one can only talk about the future if the present is secure.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Working ones, however, are generally preferable! Happiness is as genuine as suffering. But yes, we should definitely strive to reduce the latter as much as possible. And if one believes that joy is an illusion, they should also be sceptical of suffering.

If people cannot find adequate value in their lives, it would obviously be better if they did not exist. I do not think that an exact calculation exists, which is why it does not make sense to end the potential for immense happiness based upon one's own views. As for heaven and hell, I think that something can appear like neither of two because it can be both. But since absolute imperfection is not required for some lives to be better off not existing, I think it can also be ethical to form lives that would be appreciated by those who exist. A precise number seems improbable to me, and I am not sure that such a number could accurately reflect the depth of true happiness or even harm. People's own perspectives will ultimately prevail, which is why I do respect your view, even though mine differs from yours.

If the situation gets better, it is closer to the good, so it is not bad. So, antinatalism is not necessary. I have already said that creating people in terrible conditions is not a good idea.

Agreed. I also hope that we won't treat our perspective as the standard for judging the alleged disvalue of all that is worth preserving.

For some, fortunately.

I don't think that it takes the richness and ubiquitous profundity of the joys into account to a sufficient degree, so I disagree with the idea that it does.

Except that the blackness varies, and while it can stain the surface, the white spots can be seen clearly even when they have been reduced. Fortuitously, they don't have to reduce to such a degree in the first place (nor is it the case that they cannot ever come back).

"Superficial" was in terms of chasing good that doesn't give as much value as something like a cherished bond. But by the same token, being exceedingly depressed over a mild headache while ignoring the other days when there wasn't one (and won't be one!) is not productive.

Mathematicians are too busy understanding this beautifully enigmatic cosmos of ours. However, I don't think that any honest calculation would suggest that the meaningful experiences are trivial. The light lies away from universal AN.

You do, which is why good continues to persist. Ergo, natalism.

Hope for the best (try to achieve the good), prepare for the worst (be resilient and conserve the value), and ultimately live a content life. Natalism logically follows. Bullseye indeed ;)

There is no "mercy" in violating the interests of billions of sentient beings for a nonexistent good or a "solution" that's much worse than the problem.

And also happier in many ways. Nay antinatalism!

It could, but once again, looking at an incomplete picture is dangerous. There is a potent joy hidden beneath that sacrifice, and I don't think it's trivial. Nor is such a great sacrifice always necessary, of course. Things can also be a win-win scenario, wherein people contribute towards each other's well-being.

Superficial pleasures such as material comforts might not be enough on their own for providing meaning, but I think that one who has seen the effulgent smile of the poor child hugging his mother in the slums would be forced to rethink their idea that harms matter more than the good. Extreme harms are (thankfully) not experienced by all, and whilst we do need to avoid them, I don't think their existence justifies the prevention of ineffably meaningful moments that only existing beings have cherish. The probability of a person considering their life to have been worth it is likely greater than the opposite, so I don't think that "math" supports not forming potentially billions of positive moments. And since most of us don't know what total harm or bliss are truly like, I think that claims to knowledge about that are conjecture. However, the case of the monk who calmly sat whilst burning could be an interesting example of the power of resilience. Risks that lead to a greater good is definitely acceptable. After all, letting valuable opportunities slip by would not be sensible ;) There are many candles out there. Removing a few bad ones should not be done by trying to stop any light from ever being there.

I also appreciate your kindness and care for others. However, I believe that universal antinatalism is a lost cause as far as the truth is concerned. The number of believers obviously varies. In the end, I just hope that people can have decent lives and help make the world a better place for all (and not have children when things aren't going well!). Have a brilliant day!

Parenting isn't always easy. I've met many parents who've sacrificed their careers and their enjoyment for the sake of giving their children a good life. Yet, it's undeniable that there are also many negligent parents.

The risks cannot be seen without the opportunities, which would only be caused by the parents, making them deserving of praise. If you did have convincing evidence that a heavenly state of love and joy was possible for all eternity after the experience, I would have to consider my options more carefully. And if you could send me on a journey through majestic clouds that imbue one with unfathomable joy, then the mere presence of rain wouldn't be a sufficient reason for not starting the journey, especially if it includes the love of people one would deeply care for and the ability to try to perceive and understand a mysterious yet captivating world. But this still doesn't apply to creating people, because the harm isn't necessary for them to live valuable lives and nonexistent beings don't have existing joy that is degraded by their existence. One does not intend for the harm to exist, but they do decide on the basis of the reasonable probability that the person could have a good life. Of course, it would not be good to create a person if the likelihood of harm was too high, and that's why procreating amidst a terrible conflict isn't a good idea. I wish people would stop seeing procreation as merely a way to gain more working hands or form "mini mes". It's definitely more.

Of course they would, and I disagree with that. Since one cannot guarantee that no life would would be immensely valuable and permeated with joys that one could cherish despite the harms, it cannot be ethical to prevent all good. If there was a significant probability of a greater good that was in the intestine of my friend, it would certainly be ethical to do so, particularly if my friend could not ask for the journey to begin himself. And if avoiding harm can be in our interest, then so can be the pursuit of meaningful experiences. Of course, unnecessary risks are generally not required for people who already exist and have sufficiently good lives.

Overall, I do think that we need to take procreation more seriously, which is why I am grateful to people like you for raising awareness about this!

Less than not doing so for the sake of a single-minded focus on harms ;) But yeah, I agree that purely selfish procreation is a reality that will hopefully change as people become more aware.

My instability does not justify the cessation of potential stability that could also help make others stable.

They both have their claims, but a deeper analysis clearly shows the flaws of the so-called asymmetry (it's not sensible to suggest that absent harms that benefit nobody is something good but lack of joy isn't). And I think that the hasty generalisation that suffering outweighs all happiness is probably untrue.

I agree that we must stop mindless procreation. The future could also be good, but this solicits effort. Reproduction cannot be taken lightly, and when possibility of harm is too great (I don't think this has to be the case in every situation), it would surely be sensible to not create a person.

And we love:
1. Happiness (which isn't an illusion).
2. Living.
3. Life

Entropy is inevitable, but the creation of something that can act as source of inimitable joy and resilience isn't necessarily problematic. Stability amidst decay. Perhaps the cycle is eternal. Of course, "we" is somewhat of a generalisation, since not all might prefer the latter two and have certain peculiar ideas about the first. Anyway, I don't think it's always evil to create (it can be good), but I think that it definitely can be, especially in a world struggling with issues such as worsening wealth disparity and global warming. Hope you guys have a nice day!

Lol. That's a bit sad, I think. Be that as it may, I hope you have an incredible day!

Another failure here—this one being the mistake to not distinguish between a statement about a lack of explanation and a reply to arguments. Not understanding crucial differences leads to monumental mistakes.

"Also existence" is not a trivial point, because nonexistent beings don't have a life that's being reduced when they are created.

It would be wrong to create the person because of the suffering likely outweighing the good. This is about averting an overwhelmingly negative life (which isn't lived by most people, and I hope that we can reach a point where it would be lived by almost nobody), not about avoiding "killing" someone.

I don't think that existing is always good, but the existence of ethereal joys can certainly give us reason to think that it can be preferable in many cases.

] Issues usually crop up when "manifestly clear" things are observed without taking the bigger picture into account.

And you did not read my reply or failed to understand it. The bomb would still harm existing people, and since it isn't necessary for them to be harmed, it would be unethical to do something that results in the loss of their life. But creating a life does not cause one to die because it does not reduce anybody's life. You keep asserting the same thing even though you never truly had a valid argument to defend it. Then again, defending the indefensible isn't a possibility.

Some ropes are thinner than others ;)

You've proven my point about projection by accusing me of doing what you have been indulging in throughout this thread without providing adequate justification. Once again, creating a person does not cut short any person's life, which is why it makes no sense to claim that procreation causes their death. You're free to keep believing that if it suits your pessimism (not using this to bolster my argument, so this isn't an ad hominem), but I don't think that this changes the truth.

And no, the perceived harm of death does not negate the possibility of the deeply meaningful experiences of life. It's unfortunate that some people choose to ignore an an entire side of reality. Furthermore, preventing harm (loss of something valuable) at the cost of preventing all good itself isn't a particularly wise idea.

Saying aye to irrational conclusions isn't my forté :p