I am a pantheist too! Although, I should add that it is a part of my larger belief system, which is also the reason why I do not think that the cycle of birth can be broken by simply not creating beings. Self-realisation is essential, and that is different for each individual, but it is certain that the human birth does give one the best opportunity to look past the illusion. In that sense, both suffering and happiness are maya (illusion). However, I prefer not getting into that stuff here ;)

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

Compared to heaven, Earth might be hell, but compared to hell, Earth is indeed heaven. The former inspires us to make the world a better place, and the latter makes us realise that life can certainly be ineffably valuable even in the face of darkness. There is value there, not nothingness.

There's always something to "think" about. That doesn't mean it might be accurate :p

I don't think antinatalism is correct, but I suppose there is a sort of fundamental value in any pain we appreciate. Perhaps one would not even call it a harm in the ultimate sense.

Also, are you really Agent Smith?

I planted a couple of trees recently, and I swear I heard the wind whisper "thank you" in my ear ;)

I would say that it has no value. However, I can agree for the sake of the argument that it certainly is, which is why a state of affairs where happiness does not happen might also be an actually relevant one. But I digress, so I do agree that the actual states of affairs are important.

Talking about damage that does not exist is also a "projection" of sorts, but I suppose I agree.

I always said that I do agree that there is harm in existence (at least, for now).

Would you agree that there are also goods that are taking place, and in the other case, there aren't? If not, then there is no point in endless repetition.

It does matter, but go ahead.

The major point has been discussed ad infinitum. 1. A state of affairs of immense value is taking place.

In another 2) A state of immense value is not taking place. It certainly could have :p

Yes, I agree that there is no intrinsically valuable benefit and what you call "collateral damage". But I would again say that if the latter is positively significant, the former is negatively so.

I am not sure. After all, there might be invisible souls suffering due to a lack of existence ;)

Once again, you are missing the point.
1. If the absence of harm is good because there is "no collateral damage", the lack of happiness is also bad because there is no benefit. And nobody is satisfied from the absence of damage, so if the lack of goods is not problematic, then the absence of harms cannot be good.

2. Neither is the absence of harms (if the absence of happiness is not). However, the truth is that the lack of happiness does lead to harms (for existing people) and vice versa. If the absence of harms is considered good in one sense, the lack of happiness is also bad.

In one case, someone experiences the presence of happiness. In the other case, one does not, and neither do they feel the benefits of a lack of suffering. This is exactly how it goes.

I think there are flaws in your position that you did not ever try to address, which has undoubtedly played a role in shaping your incorrect view ;)

I also did not deny that suffering or "collateral damage" is not bad. I only showed that in one scenario there are goods and in the other, there aren't any. Additionally, nobody benefits from the lack of harm/damage. In one case there is also immense happiness and in the other case there is none, and there is nobody to be satisfied from all the prevented harms. I am afraid that it's you who has failed to understand that there is no "asymmetry" here, and that is what the facts on the ground tell us.

I do not think that creating happy lives necessarily requires creating harm, though it is certainly possible that some would, unfortunately, exist (but one can hope that many of them could be eliminated through ideas such as transhumanism). Yet again, you did not grasp my point, which was ultimately about a consistent position. If you believe that creating "damage" is bad, you would believe that not doing so is either good or neutral. If it is good to not create harms, I think it is also bad to not have any value. But if all that matters is existence, then just as creating harm can be bad, creating happiness can be good, I am not sure if Kant said anything about using your subjective opinion to degrade/ignore all the positives of existence on the basis of an arbitrary "asymmetry". Nobody has an interest in not existing, so your decision to not create them is not exactly serving their interests. However, I would say that if it is bad to create a negative life, it can also be good to create a good one with the right intentions (and provided one cares for the child). If you believe that preventing all good is justifiable, then it is you who is holding the ethically indefensible position. Nobody exists for them to be "used", and people can find value without one having to push it down one's throat. Bestowing positive values that one could not ask for before existing can definitely be good.

People also have negativity biases that can lead them to focus on the negatives. Nevertheless, I do think that value is quite subjective, so I would not claim that all lives were worthwhile. A person could have plenty of material comforts and be sad, or have almost nothing in terms of material wealth but be happy. I am not saying that anybody should be forced to endure a worthless existence, which is why I support the right to die. However, this does not change the fact that creating someone can also cause invaluable happiness (the creation of which is not harmful to someone else), and it does matter.

In that case, the absence of damage/harm also has no significance. If someone does not exist, it is only a benefit to the potential parents' (who might be projecting their pessimistic biases!), not the person who was never born. Lack of harm is the opposite of "collateral" damage, so your point seems to be illogical. If you are okay with the idea that preventing all intensely meaningful experiences is justifiable for the sake of preventing some harms, then I do not think I would be able to agree with such a view, for it seems to be fundamentally limited to me.

I am aware it was, but I do not think it was done "for" someone; someone was simply created. "For" generally implies an act that is done with reference to a person who exists, but this is a minor nitpick.

By the way, I hope that you have a nice day!

Much appreciated :)

I do not think you understood what I was saying, though I am sorry if I accidentally misconstrued you.
Once again, the point is that if the absence of harm can be considered better, then the lack of happiness is bad. This is only about consistency, but I did also mention in my previous reply that I am willing to consider non-creation to be neutral. However, it still would not be obligatory, and creating the positives will always matter. The "imbalance" lies in your arguments, not mine.

I was talking about the nature of suffering and happiness for existing people, so you again did not get what I was saying. Aside from the fact that not creating anybody can cause many people to be sad, the lack of all life cannot be considered a moral obligation due to the fact that the genesis of the positives is necessarily good. I am repeating myself, yet again, that if the creation of "collateral damage" is bad, the creation of innumerable goods is good.

As for the alleged imbalance between the existence of an obligation to not harm others but no such need being there for happiness, I think that this is not important when it comes to creating a person. I have already said this, but one does not need to constantly intervene in a person's life in order to ensure they are happy. Usually, not harming them can be sufficient. However, this caveat concerning increasing happiness does not apply to people who don't exist, since nobody is satisfied prior to existing. Therefore, the creation of happiness matters just as the prevention of harms does. Furthermore, one could say that preventing harms matters slightly more but it can still be good to increase happiness, just not at an unreasonably high cost to oneself. I believe that the inextricable link between the poles of happiness and harms means that the choice is more straightforward because removing harms does lead to goods, but we should certainly not have disproportionately high expectations, since that might end up causing more harm than good. In addition to that, it would seem better to live in a world where more people have sufficiently valuable lives, so one could prioritise the reduction of extreme harms.

You are the one who seems to be missing the point since you refuse to see things from outside your lens. If nobody is born, nobody is harmed. This is either neutral or good. If it is good that the harms do not exist, I do not see any reason to think that the lack of happiness is not bad. If it is neutral and the only relevant consideration are the lives of those who exist, then the creation of happiness can certainly be good, just as the presence of harms might be bad. If someone is born, one can experience a happy life due to a decision someone else was capable enough to take for them.

It very much does due to the fact that one necessarily seeks to avoid negatives and achieve the positives. If an ethical system revolves around the former, it would only be coherent if it also takes the latter into account. Therefore, the absence of experiential negatives is good, and the presence of experiential positives is also good.

I do think that it can be ethical to create deeply meaningful lives even if there are harms. Once again, your position seems to entail that not creating someone is an obligation (and not just a neutral act). The only reason something would be obligatory (in the context of a framework that cares about the conscious experiences of people) is if it is "better" for a person in some way, whether it's abstractly or experientially. But as I have said ad nauseam, if the absence of the negatives is an obligation due to the good resulting from its absence, it can also be problematic to not have any positive sensations. I do think that we should consider as many relevant factors (economic conditions, health, etc.) as we can to ensure that the possibility of harm can be minimised.

"Sentimental needs" also appeared to be a vacuous rhetorical trick to me, but no worries. As for skipping, well, the truth can often be skipped if one is not careful ;)

I have been talking about values with reference to people, so that appears to be a straw man to me. Value is indeed significant to those who exist, and as I have explained before, it does not make sense to say that creating "collateral damage" is bad and necessary to avoid but creating happiness is not good. And I hope you do not ask me to look at the argument again or talk about deprivation since I am not referring to that in this particular instance. It is definitely good to choose to give birth to a life that one would find amazing.

I care more about the actual implications of a view, not what one might think about it. Personally, I don't think that it makes sense to call an act a harm (collateral "damage") if it does not lead to a worse state of affairs for a person. The comparison might be an abstract one (though I tend to disagree with that), but it still exists and gives us a reason to deem one state of affairs to be more ethical over another. One could plausibly say that it's "better" for a person to not live and suffer than it would be to exist. But if that is the case, I think that it is also instrumentally worse for them to not experience the positives of life, irrespective of whether or not there is any concious feeling of deprivation. In my view, an ethical obligation exists (in terms of harms/benefits) only when it's clear that doing or not doing the act always leads to an outcome that's preferable or undesirable for the person. If neither has any value, then the lack of action can only be ethically neutral, not obligatory. Neutrality is better than a bad outcome (the negatives), but it is also worse than a good one (happiness), and, considering that many people do cherish their lives, I think that it can be justifiable to create a person.

You once again employ double standards when you start talking about deprivations with reference to the lack of happiness. If creating suffering leads to "collateral harms", giving birth also contribute to the formation of invaluable positives that do have worth. You are the one who is claiming that something ought to be a moral obligation even though it either has no value (since suffering and the lack thereof are also only relevant for those who exist, not the void), or any positive worth it has can be outweighed by the negative value being derived from all the prevented goods (in an abstract sense, obviously).


Although I consider "start for someone else" to be slightly misleading, since it can seem to imply as if someone already existed who was brought into a harmful state where harms began, the simple truth is that there also is the formation of happiness in one case, and there isn't any value in the other. I believe that it can be good to choose the former.

I do not think our differences are as big, especially since I admire people like you who care about others. However, it's unfortunately true that not taking the meaningful aspects of life into account on the basis of a flawed framework can lead one to actually "imbalanced" positions that are, in reality, deeply unethical. No, preventing happiness can certainly be bad if preventing harm can be good. The lack of the positives leads to the negatives and vice versa. If the absence of all does not matter, then one could also say that the lack of harm does not matter unless it benefits an actual person. But if we consider the lack of suffering to be ethically preferable, the absence of all good cannot be deemed desirable.

Creating life also creates happiness (real good that is ethically relevant).

My "scenario" is concerned with consistency, and so it only cares about existing people. It isn't my worldview that suggests that applies unjustified double standards such as the absence of suffering being good without any actual benefit but the lack of happiness not being problematic by the same token.

People are created: Cherished lives and some negative lives exist. The latter is bad but the former is good.

People are created: Either there is no value at all, or the lack of the negatives is comparatively better but the lack of all the positives is also worse/unpreferable.
The immense goods of life cannot be turned into collateral damage for the sake of completing the project of eliminating the negatives, for that leads to a problem that is worse than the solution. Once again, I am talking about existing people, not the void. And if people need to feel deprived for the lack of happiness to be bad, then they also need to feel conscious relief for the absence of harm to be good. As for the idea that the absence of suffering and harm doesn't have any value at all for nonexistent beings, I would firstly say that I do not think one can say that someone has been harmed/benefitted from an action if it does not lead to a comparatively better/worse outcome. But be that as it may, I think that the logical position is to hold is that the creation of the negatives (that nobody had an interest in avoiding before existing) is bad, and the creation of the positives (that nobody could view as a desideratum prior to their birth) is good. Not creating anybody, in this case, would be ethically neutral (which I do not think to be the case, since I do think that new people affect those who exist), but it would not be obligatory.

Sentimental needs for preventing all life cannot be a valid excuse for preventing all value. Commensurability can be subjective, though it does seem like most people do cherish their lives. The point is that not creating a person also does not commit any good other than fulfilling the needs of those who do not want life to exist due to a flawed idea of what constitutes a solution (since if the lack of happiness is not bad, then neither is the lack of harm preferable), and this does not justify ceasing the possibility of ineffable goods that did not deserve to be prevented., even if the people putting forward these proposals have good intentions.

Lastly, I would reiterate that I do agree with much of what you said pertaining to the need to take suffering seriously, and the broader idea of taking procreation far more seriously is also truly significant.

Co-existence with nature is surely essential. If we do manage to do so, we can experience the majesty of the mountains, the beauty of the twilight, and the eternally ethereal gale that has the potential to light up our darkest of hours. Love and knowledge cannot exist if one is constantly engaged in conflict and mindless competition for "growth". Our current work culture does seem to lead many people to their bubbles, with altruism being relegated to the sidelines. However, such a system is not tenable in the long term. We depend on each other, and the relationship is not merely an economical one. Hopefully, the popularity of suffering-focused ethics will help raise awareness regarding the need for compassion and cooperation.

I hope that they would not have a need to do so!

I think that there is sufficient value (relief/happiness) for many people. Things decay, but they also participate in creation, existence, and growth. We should, however, try to conserve our resources in a more efficient manner instead of indulging in blind consumerism.

This seems to be getting circular, and I think it's you who hasn't understood my position. Still, I apologise if my reply appeared to mischaracterise your position. One is concerned with the one who does the action, but the action, in turn, matters due to the person in question. I was only advocating for consistency pertaining to the positives and the negatives. If the prevention of harm is good, then the creation of the benefits is also good.

This is certainly about someone other than (just) the parent, and this much is evident when you use "someone". This seems like impertinent semantics, but that's okay. The truth, in my view, is:

1. Someone is born and they are happy. This is a possibility of being born.

2. Someone is not born and they don't experience happiness.

I completely disagree with the idea that only preventing suffering has value when it comes to creating a person (existing people can generally live sufficiently valuable lives as long as they avoid harms, which is why it might be good enough for us to simply ensure that they are not harmed). The preservation and creation of happiness (a positive experience, the opposite of suffering) also matters a lot. I don't think that one needs to necessarily harm someone in order to be happy. In general, it's indeed possible that harms would exist alongside happiness (although it's possible to reduce the former significantly), but I don't think that preventing suffering at the cost of all positives can be considered fair/ethical. Doing so would be a "solution" far bigger than the problem it purports to solve. I am not saying that all lives are amazing, but there are many which certainly are and their worth isn't expendable. Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly said, I do hope that ideas such as the RTD and transhumanism can help drastically reduce extreme suffering.

No person existed beforehand to benefit from a lack of suffering. One has both needs and contentment, but one cannot simply prevent the circumstances where there would be any fulfillment and then claim that it's a better outcome. Causing the positives to exist will always be ethical and preventing valuable lives when there was no universal need for doing so cannot be acceptable.

I am, however, aware of the fact that there are many issues we need to resolve, which is why I tell many people around me to not have a child unless they are ready to give them the care they deserve (something which has become more difficult due to our contemporary work culture). Thank you for sharing your insightful views!

I feel intimidated ;)

I can select the text but cannot copy it due to the fact that the option does not appear. Maybe I am using an outdated device lol.

I am using an Android, so it's a bit difficult for me to quote :p

I fear that it's your argument that lacks reason and clarity.

Once again, you believe that the lack of what you term "collateral damage" is good (presumably, since you do wish to prevent it). My response was that while preventing harm/damage might be good/better, it is not good for anybody to not experience the positive aspects of life. I do not think that this is a particularly difficult point to comprehend, unless, of course, one resorts to employing arbitrary double standards premised upon a flawed framework that does not take the valuable aspects of life into account.

In one scenario, a person can live a happy life. In the other one, they do not. This is a violation of the basic principle that creating and preserving good does matter, just as the reduction of suffering does.

You are intent on only focusing on one side of the coin. I never claimed that any of those things were good. However, meaningful relationships, creativity, and the experience of other positives that are not "trivial" for countless sentient beings do not deserve to be prevented simply because nobody is capable of asking for them before they exist. You would once again say that nobody is deprived from their absence, but this misses the point entirely because, as I have mentioned ad nauseum if the lack of bads can be good sans any conscious feeling of satisfaction, the absence of the goods is necessarily bad.

I thought you had taken that view when you decided for millions of happy people ;)
In all seriousness, the cardinal consideration is not just the harm, as you seem to think. There are also ineffably valuable experiences that do matter, and I would not wish to unfairly prevent their possibility even if I personally did not value my life. I would not wish to forsake the chance of partaking in the genesis of a life that an innocent being would hold deeply adore, particularly when this could be the reality for many people.

To whom do we owe the prevention of suffering? There aren't any souls in the void who would be defenestrated into a state of affairs that would degrade their satisfied state. However, if we still wish to believe that it's good to prevent the harms even if nobody benefits from that action, I do not think it makes sense to think that the lack of goods would not be bad.

I was referring to existing people, including myself. I understand that you might believe in your "head" that it is not significant, but it definitely is.

You are obstinately asserting your position whilst conveniently ignoring consistency and the lived experiences of the billions of sentient beings you care about. For the last time: I do not think that everything is hunky-dory just because happiness exists. There clearly do exist significant harms that need to be reduced. However, that elimination should not come at the cost of preventing innumerable good experiences, many of which persist even in the face of seemingly insuperable odds. Waving them away by focusing on the harms appears to be disingenuous, and I would not be able to accept such a viewpoint. Bestowing an incontrovertibly meaningful life that is precious and rare is not unethical.

Harming existing people is not justified unless it leads to greater happiness for them. There is no need to digress from the pertinent issue here, which is the creation of new people. The lack of harm is good for people as it allows them to live happy lives without issues. I think you are the one who has ignored my point that if it can be good to prevent harms that do nobody in the void is hankering for, it can also be wrong to prevent the goods. I do not think that it is rational to hold unjustifiable double standards here.

That appears to be a rather poor straw man. As I have said before, one need not harm already happy people by creating unnecessary risks unless doing so has a high probability of leading to greater goods. As for those who do not exist, all I can do is to reiterate my aforementioned point, which is that it is irrational to believe that the lack of undesirable experiences is good, but the lack of desirable experiences isn't bad. I can only explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. I do not think that anybody should kill themselves, and I hope that improvements in healthcare and living standards can prevent the need for taking such a step prematurely. Eventually, of course, it would be beneficial for all beings to be able to find a graceful exit instead of being forced to survive for the sake of some strange idea about the "sanctity of life".

If it isn't "not nice", it is also not nice to prevent all harm. I am merely advocating for rational consistency here. I care about the happiness and suffering of existing people, not necessarily abstract values pertaining to the void.

I thought you did the same with your "kill yourself" comments before. Be that as it may, I don't think I would wish to fall prey to blind pessimistic (or optimistic) sentimentalism that leads to a detrimental outcome for people. You are the one who wants to prevent harms that nobody in the void desires to avoid. Yet, if that is still necessary, then I don't think that creating all love, beauty, and a life permeated with meaning (which often exists even in desperate situations) can be ignored by incessantly talking about harm. I would not be myopic enough to suggest that only the positives matter, but I simply cannot see a logical reason to find the prevention of all good to be ethical.

This has indeed become quite repetitive. Once again, I am only working under a framework that should be consistent. If it is good/ethical to prevent harms that do not lead to a tangible benefit for the people they were putatively prevented for, then it is certainly unethical to not create all positives. For existing beings, it isn't always important to do more than just stopping harm, Howbeit, I do think that it is more logical to understand that nothing is nothing, while something can be astoundingly good, and I do not believe that the harms can negate all of those potent experiences that define the lives of many people.

Thanks for the tip, but I am too poor to employ it effectively. Perks of living in a third world country, I suppose. Still, there's beauty to be found in using a (slightly broken) handheld device!

Because I don't find the position to be particularly rational due to its application of arbitrary double standards pertaining to happiness and suffering, though you're free to think it is. I didn't intend to use it disparagingly, so I apologise if I came off as being rude.

I also explained that nobody in inexistence is craving s prevention of all life. However, if it can still be good to prevent all harms, it's also bad to prevent all happiness, irrespective of whether or not there is a conscious feeling of deprivation.

The prevented suffering also doesn't "matter" to anybody and doesn't fill anybody with relief. However, when one can say that preventing harm is good, I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that it wouldn't be bad to prevent all the goods.

It is unethical to prevent goods in order to bring about "prevention".

And that right there is the crux of the issue— I don't think that it makes sense to say that the absence of harms is good even though it doesn't actually lead to a benefit for anybody (except in an abstract sense), but the lack of good isn't problematic. It's certainly good to focus on reducing suffering for existing people since that's usually sufficient for them to live decent lives. However, in the case of creating people, I think that it can be good to create potential happiness.

I never said it didn't. However, if one believes that not creating a person is good due to prevented harms, it's also unimaginably bad due to all the prevented goods. All the valuable lives cannot be relegated to being collateral damage (and yes, it would indeed be bad to prevent the good if it's good to prevent the harms).

There's also "thank you for this single opportunity of experiencing joy, which, despite being precious and fragile, has been a source of inimitable value". The right is still necessary, but it isn't sensible to think that bestowing the ethereal positives is unnecessary or worthless; it most definitely isn't.

I don't think that creating anybody involves imposing something, but even if it does, I would consider the lack of bestowal of goods to be justifiable. The point is that if you believe that it's better to prevent all the negatives, it's also worse to prevent all the positives.

The absence of suffering also doesn't matter (and is therefore not a solution) for the nonexistent beings in the void, by the same token. If the lack of harm is still preferable in an instrumental/abstract sense, the lack of goods is certainly a problem.

Semantical obfuscation seems to be in play here, I am afraid. I don't think that one should be obligated to create beings since there are both practical limitations and long-term societal impacts to consider. Nevertheless, it's irrational to suggest that bringing about the absence of all harms that nobody is desperate to avoid is an obligation, yet it isn't fundamentally problematic to also lead to the cessation of innumerable goods. It wouldn't be particularly nice to prevent all happiness, even if your intentions were to just stop the possibility of harm.

The truth is not convolution. The reality is that universal antinatalism does imply that even if a person would have a deeply meaningful life and would cherish their existence (and hope to relive it), it supposedly would not be good to create them, which is something that seems patently absurd to me. But I digress—the reality is that there's it's unreasonable to consider the lack of harm to be preferable whilst failing to see that the positives will also always matter.

The pertinent point, but that's fine.

Pain is also not an entity that requires a sacrifice of happiness at the altar of "prevention". Nobody in nonexistence has a need for preventing everything that would inundate them with relief. But if it can still be good to ensure that future harms don't exist, it's quite apparent that it's unethical to prevent all the positives. The lack of happiness could certainly be considered collateral damage (or much bigger damage, since most people do seem to value their lives) in an abstract sense, just as one might consider the lack of harm to be better.

Thank you for your kind words. Hope you have a nice weekend!

schopenhauer1
Also, I don't think that creating valuable lives has much to do with causing harm. It's certainly good to have good experiences (even if nobody is capable of asking for them before existing), just as you might believe that it's good to eliminate the possibility of harms despite the fact that nobody is hankering for the absence of the negatives before coming into existence. I don't think that the harms is good, and I certainly hope that we had better options for people to find a graceful exit. Nevertheless, I don't think that one should decide to arbitrarily impose a pessimistic view that leads to the cessation of all that matters. Love, beauty, and the pursuit of knowledge matter to a lot of people—definitely a lot more than a "game", and it isn't fair to pull the plug on the basis of a perspective that's not true for billions of people, many of whom deeply value their lives in spite of the existence of harms. "Oh yeah, I can tell that you have deluded yourself into loving your life even though you've suffered a lot, but I don't think that your life needs to be created (if it didn't exist), so it's still acceptable if you didn't exist at all (yet it's obligatory to prevent negatives that don't lead to a tangible better outcome for an actual person, which means the "good" coming from that prevention is an abstract one). If it's obligatory to prevent harms that nobody was desperate to avoid in the void, I believe that it is also necessary to ensure that the good in the world is conserved. Arbitrary double standards, I am afraid, cannot change this ineluctable fact.

Still, I am sorry if my comments came off as being callous towards the reality of suffering. As someone who has struggled with illnesses for much of my younger years, I am aware of the fact that it is a grim reality that isn't addressed properly, particularly in a self-centred society. I advocate for a liberal RTD (along with transhumanism) because I do want the harms to end, and I am hopeful that, provided we work together, we can eliminate most forms of extreme suffering.

Semantics can certainly conceal a lot. If one puts a negative value to the existence of positives (and thus believe their absence to be better), I don't think that it's rational to believe that not preserving the good is somehow not problematic. If someone exists, they can be happy. My point is that not creating a person does not create the opportunity of an immense good for a person (since they don't exist). However, creating them can also lead to goods, even if there would be negatives. I believe that the moral choice is to minimise harms and to increase the goods. Also, I don't think that creating valuable lives has much to do with causing harm. It's certainly good to have good experiences (even if nobody is capable of asking for them before existing), just as you might believe that it's good to eliminate the possibility of harms despite the fact that nobody is hankering for the absence of the negatives before coming into existence. I don't think that the harms is good, and I certainly hope that we had better options for people to find a graceful exit. Nevertheless, I don't think that one should decide to arbitrarily impose a pessimistic view that leads to the cessation of all that matters. Love, beauty, and the pursuit of knowledge matter to a lot of people—definitely a lot more than a "game", and it isn't fair to pull the plug on the basis of a perspective that's not true for billions of people, many of whom deeply value their lives in spite of the existence of harms. "Oh yeah, I can tell that you have deluded yourself into loving your life even though you've suffered a lot, but I don't think that your life needs to be created (if it didn't exist), so it's still acceptable if you didn't exist at all (yet it's obligatory to prevent negatives that don't lead to a tangible better outcome for an actual person, which means the "good" coming from that prevention is an abstract one). If it's obligatory to prevent harms that nobody was desperate to avoid in the void, I believe that it is also necessary to ensure that the good in the world is conserved. Arbitrary double standards, I am afraid, cannot change this ineluctable fact.

Still, I am sorry if my comments came off as being callous towards the reality of suffering. As someone who has struggled with illnesses for much of my younger years, I am aware of the fact that it is a grim reality that isn't addressed properly, particularly in a self-centred society. I advocate for a liberal RTD (along with transhumanism) because I do want the harms to end, and I am hopeful that, provided we work together, we can eliminate most forms of extreme suffering.

I should add that I do believe that a lot of people do, unfortunately, create beings without considering it properly. I think that we should focus on implementing ideas such as a liberal RTD along with improvements in technology to ensure that suffering is minimised. In this respect, it's great to see compassionate people like you who care about others. Hope you have a good day ahead!

Perhaps some other people would do well to not project their pessimism onto others ;) I wouldn't wish to derive happiness out of ceasing all valuable experiences.

The suffering also doesn't mean anything on its own. However, it does have significance for those who exist, just as the positives do. If nobody exists, there isn't anybody in the void who benefits from the absence of harms. If the lack of suffering would be good, I believe that the presence of happiness is also better (in an abstract sense, of course).

Although I don't believe that it's always wrong to procreate (since I believe that it can be good to preserve the ineffably meaningful experiences of life, just as it would be good to eliminate the bad ones), I do think that people shouldn't be creating beings in the current situation without ensuring that they are capable of giving them a sufficiently valuable life. Hopefully, ideas such as transhumanism and the RTD can help significantly reduce harms.