No. It's not. Thanks for playing.

I am amazed that you haven't been banned. — Janus

All I can say is lets hope you aren't quite this fragile in the real world. As with Tobias, I don't care, and nor should you.

Thanks for this. I can tell you see something in it, regardless of your protestations.
No. People 'make promises' in the same sense people 'make friends' or 'make sense' or 'make out' an image in the distance. There is nothing that exists beyond the act. There are no promises out there waiting for you to fulfill them. There are no free-floating 'friends' that you've made out there waiting for you to call. You don't 'make sense' of a sentence, and then the 'sense' sits there to be observed. Exists in the sentence. It is nothing, of itself.

There are other people with particular brain states in both accounts, as result of your behaviour. Those brain states obtain, exist, affect and all the rest(with the addition of being, while extant, related). And while we disagree, there's nothing wrong with noting these can be considered moral aspects of having caused those brain states i.e to disappoint one to whom you've agreed to idk, provide food, is 'bad' because you said you would. Not just because you didn't do it.
However, the promise was a singular act and quite clearly doesn't exist as 'an' anything. It is the person's brain state that exists. But as noted earlier, if both parties to a 'promise' forget that it was made, the there aren't even these brain states and te claim that the 'promise' still exists becomes risible to the point of perhaps being an indicator of sillygooseness.

I would be hard to imagine a funnier response than Banno's above.

None of this matters - it only relates to what I already granted you - what HUmans do about this is a fun discussion.

But this changes nothing about hte objective facts which exist in the Universe where Abrahamic God created it all.

'The Bible was an attempt to capture my nature for a less sophisticated time. Much of the stories were misconceived and misunderstood.' — Tom Storm

Then that's an objective fact. I didn't note any, so picking apart any particular belief people hold doesn't come across my desk, as it were. It is conceptually airtight that the Abrahamic God existing imports objective facts.

I'm not sure about that. — Tom Storm

It's not arguable. In this scenario, its cooked in that states of affairs are relayable by the ultimate being. They are going to be 100% air-tight and unassailable save for dishonesty - which is baked out of hte concept because an objective goodness is baked in. You have to remeber, we're playing by THEIR rules. You can't just question the Abrahamic God if we've established it exists - and not be wrong.

The problem you raise, I see, and it's a fun one to play with ie What would people do about objective facts IFF Abrahamic God exists?? All your questions are live in that arena and imo a lot of fun.

I read the whole post, and chose the bit that was most ridiculous. — Banno

No. You took something out of context to make it seem ridiculous. This is called strawmanning among other things. IN the real world, this sort of underhanded nonsense is ignored. Perhaps why you're here?

Your claim is that there are no promises. — Banno

Hahaha. And then you go on to impugn my comprehension. Cannot make up this level of irony. Sniff away!!

Your repeated vindictive and lack of substance — Banno

If you think clearly, precisely rebutting a clearly erroneous argument repeatedly is "lack of substance" this is explains you quite well. And again, why you're here.
I would recommend how you could overcome yourself but I don't think you want to gain any insights. Just sniff.

Determinism seems flawed in that regard because it looks backwards to the present and says the sum of all my choices lead to me having or not having my breakfast. — kindred

It does this forwardly too. We just don't know the outcomes because we don't have the calculating power or access to the data (in fact, we might have teh calculating power come to think of it).

If evolution has provided a brilliant illusion, as so many believe, that we make choices proper, this would acceptable on current understandings, as would free will. I don't think its a conundrum at all. You essentially play a little film in your head about making a choice you've already made.
Libet seemed to 'discover' this fact though that's been thrown out mostly from what I can tell.

I remarked on a previous nonsensical statement that 'without god, there are no objective truths'. — 180 Proof

That isn't nonsensical though, is it 180? Its simply not veridical. IFF an Abrahamic God exists, then there we have objective facts from on high. Without, we're where you're situating us (and I agree). So, it holds..

No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there? — Fire Ologist

I missed this, so will give my response here, and then add responses to your most recent below:

Ah, but this is entirely fine and there's nothing wrong with those two positions. It is wrong to bring a fetus to term because thence begins suffering. Being pregnant, per se, isn't an issue. If you were 100% sure to miscarry every child you ever had implanted in your womb - go for gold, but get a therapist.
An abortion prevents the human life entering the pool of suffering. There's no failure in logic that i can see unless there's some underlying imports i'm not grasping.

you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels. — Fire Ologist

I agree, and in the process of getting to the 'data set' these are meaningful, just not to antinatalism. It's the contour of the aggregation that's used in this discussion, rather than the fine-grain you're at(or were before).

If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out. — Fire Ologist

I think, in a poetic sense, this is more or less where most antinatalists lie. Just don't do anything to increase the number of people. The rest can take care of itself, if we dodge an asteroid in the meantime.

we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I see no issue, though. The ethic which leads us to remove bigotry would be defeated by a defeat (removal) of all bigotry in the world. This is an oddity of most ethical views, but they are about how to act. If we can't act, its not up for consideration I think.

Christ. No wonder you do this on a forum.

This is how I approach it (with academic vigor included.. its now my vocation). I can't get into the weeds on Ethics in real life. Its not worth my time further than putting my position forward and defending against attacks. Actual discussions are circles.
Parfit was a very interesting one as he was an atheist who sought to the very end to come up with an objective ethic. He failed. As all will.

It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life. — Fire Ologist

Right, somewhat fair. In this case, I think it would take that accounting exercise though. Again, in the individual circumstance your delusion(Trademark - lol) is a + for your experience but I'm unsure why this matters. I also suffer the above-noted delusion but I'm still aware of all the suffering outside myself - with the addition of my being relatively sure I'm wrong about my own life. The former aspect is far more important than the suffering I actually acknowledge in my own life, as I see it. Forgive the somewhat combative nature of that approach too - it was tongue-in-cheek.

“because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” — Fire Ologist

No, no. Let me be clear. This is wrong. I have struck through the erroneous word that I think is doing a lot of lifting. Without that word, it becomes as described in the first response paragraph in this post. Its actually pretty damn key to remember that zooming in on a specific life is the wrong method here, and I just don't see it as relevant in the wider discussion because of the potential that you're just simply wrong about your quality of life - despite that wrongness improving your quality of life hehe (though, noting that almost no antinatalists think suicide is a reasonable response to any of life, once it gets going).

They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them. — Fire Ologist

Because they are alive. You're doing the wrong calculation. Suffice to say, your point here stands but your reasons for it are simply not at all relevant to coming to conclusions on whether to have more children versus what you think about your existing children, or what they think of you. They are already alive. Not in the discussion, as individuals.

There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first. — Fire Ologist

And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality.

Two things: 1. — Fire Ologist

I think you're wrong and I can't find any intuition as to how your reversed version could be reasonable as an assumption.

But 2. — Fire Ologist

That wasn't really asserted. I've been very clear that what I think about any particular life isn't relevant (nor is what you think, for that matter). I'm unsure how better to explain that?

Your position seems to result in the notion that it is never permissible to require behaviours from people who are ignorant of the harm those behaviours cause, because they don't report the harm. IF you're consistent in that, I can't really fault your reasoning But i think you're wrong about the states of affairs. If we all accept that life is on balance, a shit experience, having kids would be morally wrong ipso facto - no law needed. Having kids at 80 (males) is in this box. No one thinks Al Pacino isn't all hunky dory for being a father to his newborn at his age. Most agree it's wrong.

The AN position is not this. — I like sushi

This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good.

ou're all missing the mark to some degree. — schopenhauer1

I'm not.

The argument relies on the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1

Not quite. This is what supports it. It relies on the state of affairs being that suffering is the overwhelming mode of experience for humans.
The a-symmetry simply supports the ethical solution of not procreating. Not the position itself.

I thought we were talking about ethics, a moral law. — Fire Ologist

We were - i tried to take your posts as this. I've responded to the additional comment above as-if. I didn't take you to be insinuating common law.

But often being angry about something means there is something of consideration that you find worthy of having to be addressed. — schopenhauer1

This is why I have a semi-constant smirk on. Every time I've been pressed on this by non-philosophers they get quite angry at their inability to find fault. I think people assume i'm telling them their choice to have children makes them worse people in my eyes

AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings. — Fire Ologist

I think this is wrong. If the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success.

A further comment on the a-symmetry being leaned on here: It is a crucial part of hte position, but you can actually jettison this and still hold AN views. This is why you can see it supports the action rather htan the position. A lot of people will say "Ok, but why would that mean I shouldn't have kids?" and the a-symmetry comes in.
But this also, and it needs to be clearly understood, makes it obvious that the AN accepts that nearly every living person should continue living as death causes a large proportion of the suffering being calculated.

If you can only read three words out of a post, please don't respond to it. You're only further evidencing your inabilities anyway, so I'm giving you a top tip here.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves. — Fire Ologist

This is ethics in a nutshell. It's also why co-operation is such a crucial aspect of being alive.

if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless. — Fire Ologist

I'm unsure it would. Its just far less high-stakes, i think.

Right, if I made a promise, I made a promise regardless of documentation. Even if I fail to remember making the promise, that doesn't change the fact that it was made. — Janus

This isn't touching the problem that I'm seeing missed: "the promise" does not exist. The act of commitment happened, and that can't be changed retroactively(so, depending on position this could be said to 'exist'. But the 'promise existing' is just an incoherent statement. Where is it? What is it? Who arbitrates? The promise doesn't exist, per se. It obtains in two related mindstates which assumably exist. If those mindstates change, the 'promise' fails to obtain. There is no other way to explain what a promise is, again, unless you think there's a cosmic repository somewhere of all promises made.

Banno's attitude here is simply the kind of non-engagement that Searle loves so much. Literal hand-waving.

(y)

Can someone stop AmadeusD from trolling about? He seems unable to discuss matters without peppering his responses with invectives on his interlocutor's mental abilities. I have not bothered to read his last post because it annoys me to be insulted. — Tobias

If you're not reading my posts, don't talk about htem - particularly using terms like 'trolling' which you are doing with that exact sentence. Tsk tsk. Civil discourse and all. But, in all honestly Tobias - your posts are crap. This has nothing to do with your mental abilities or you as a human. Your posts are crap. I'm allowed to say that. You taking personal offense is something you're going to need to work on.

Odd, the reactions it elicits. — Banno

Haha - yeah, this happens a lot with you. They aren't odd to those of us paying attention, though.

No.

Nor should it be.

I agree hence boredom, rather than frustration.

Still not understanding sentences it seems. Well done mate.

But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant. — Fire Ologist

I agree, but I see that as entirely impersonal. Each individual arguing about the merits of their lives doesn't really touch the discussion too deeply. Its aggregation that matters because we're talking chances. And when speaking about this, in aggregate, that most people are wrong(or right) about how 'good' their lives are becomes highly relevant. A birds-eye could count up the good moments vs bad moments (by their own lights) and most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive. This is unfortunately, true for myself and every person i've ever pressed on the subject.
I should say, I take this position, but its not "mine". This is an age-old position that I think some of the more recent antinatalists have just tried to quantify. I think it works. Its just hard to accept without becoming cynical, which i've not. It's an 'on average' claim, which results in a x chances in x that one would have a life balanced toward not suffering. That chance is vanishingly slim.

the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument. — Fire Ologist

Not really, no. The chance of a particular kind of experience is relevant, and we can aggregate extant experiences to calculate chances of more or less of that kind of experience. Ones where suffering isn't the overall flavour are rare. I wouldn't even consider doing the vast majority of things with a risk of a lifetime of suffering, without a 75+% chance of that not being the outcome. And even then, i'd most likely not do it. This rises to 99.9999999% when it has to do with my children's experience, which is telling, and may give some insight into the antinatalist thinking.

Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land. — Fire Ologist

in aggregate yes. Maybe 1/100,000 people would be right making the claim. Or living in lala land, yep.
Nought wrong with that other than that it blinds you to the fact you're deluding yourself and hey presto having kids looks good to you. *sigh*. If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally.

I disagree the suffering is all of the time for every living being. — Fire Ologist

Same. Hadn't intimated this as best I can tell.

And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering — Fire Ologist

There are ways I can get to this position, but I can't only do so in light of a fully-conscious being at the level humans are making an informed decision. Inflicting this on those unborn is horrid.

So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future — Fire Ologist

This seems extremely, extremely selfish imo. Why is your experience the tell-all for humanity? (this being said while I fully get your point. This just seems a more fun way to take it).

But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it. — Fire Ologist

I think they are deluded that this is hte case, for sure. For most people, evolution has provided a rather handy mechanism for dismissing the almost inevitable future of mostly suffering to allows to go forth and fuck, basically. I'm unsure this can be gotten around without some kind of spiritual invocation and I'm unsure what that would look like for you. Peterson'eqsue perhaps?

I don't think those are in any way accurate encapsulations of options for evolution of society.

And on what metaphysical theory are you basing that assertion? — Tobias

Its not a metaphysical assertion. The explains a huge amount about hte dullardry you're putting forward.

I did not promise my brother to return the book when there is no record of it? — Tobias

No. Because I didn't intimate this was the case. You are an extremely confused interlocutor.

Best not to take your word for anything then. — Tobias

Given the utter ridiculousness of your responses, I still do not care.

You should care because you are violating rules of civil conduct. Last time I checked they were taken seriously on this website. — Tobias

Tobias, you sweet summer child - I take part in the real world. This forum is not significant, and 'civil' discourse requires I be honest in my reactions to your responses. And I have been. If you're offended, that's up to you. I simply don't care.

However, if there really was such a man — Tobias

Begging the question. Also explains a lot. "If there were such a..." is not what we're talking about. A marriage is literally a legal instrument. For whatever reason you don't believe this is the case - which amkes everythign you say about it honestly tooth-grittingly stupid.

But there is such a fact, namely my assertion that I am married. — Tobias

This isn't a fact about your marriage. It is a fact about you. The marriage doesn't obtain because you claim it does. You're in the exact same position as someone who was never married yet made the claim. There is zero difference. Zilch. Nada. None. You can claim whatever you want, and in this case at least you'd be right that you believe you are married. That has nothing to do with whether you are married.

I am simply not believed because others cannot corroborate my assertion and there are no records of it. — Tobias

I take it you are not seeing the inanity coming to the fore here?

It's very basic stuff. — Banno

Banno, you don't even understand straight-forward sentences half the time.

"literally no evidence." — frank

I meant exactly what the quoted line means. There exists zero (none) evidence for proposition X. If that X is something which requires specific evidence such as the legal instrument of a marriage, then the rest of this is dull side-points that aren't relevant. If you're talking conceptual existence, which it seems Tobias is, that has nothing to do with what we're actually talking about and i've clarified this multiple times. I should be clear - I'm bored - not being 'uncivil'. This is tedious. Its like trying to explain something to my six year old:

See this? Its a marriage license. It's required to be married to someone in law

See this? "No" Exactly. That's the promises your mother and I made.

Two complete different things that exist in different arenas in the world, in the mind and in practice. If Tobias wanted to discuss the merits of claiming the existence of a promise, we'd have a lot more to say to each other. However, it seems he's trying to have kind of a debate between legal concepts that literally don't exist.

In everyday practice we constantly end up in such situations. Let's say you told your friend you'd return him some money you owe, what do you do? I think you will return the money. Or will you think: "Well there is no written record of me owing the money and hey my memory may be wrong and so might his, so there is no need to return the money, the promise does not exist". No, of course not. — Tobias

The an exquisite misunderstanding of what's being discussed. Ignoring that you have designed what amounts to a 'lie by omission' your scenario does not talk about what we're talking about. But, on it's face, I still disagree. The fact that you, in your head, note a 'chance' that you could be wrong does not intimate that you even could be wrong. So none of this goes anywhere.

If you, and your friend have faulty memories and neither remembers the promise - it doesn't exist. That is the only source of it. And those sources no longer exist. There is no other way that a promise could obtain. Unless you're of hte position there is a secret cosmic repository of promises in the ether..

Frank has the right idea. What exists is your beliefs. Not the things you believe (when those things are mental, like a promise).

I note that all attempts to outline somewhere that is 'better than democracy' currently, are describing violent theocracies in the main.

Anyone who votes this cycle is clearly not capable of a rational thought.

What I find particularly interesting is the notion that not getting involved is equated to commiting the act. — Tzeentch

If it feels good to hear this, you're welcome:

Silence is not violence.
You can be without, rather than with or against.
Not acting is literally not acting. It is incoherent to assign blame because of inaction. The laws around this is utterly absurd and make no sense. Importing obligations on members of society to endanger themselves is fucking WILD my guy, and this is based on the idea tha tnot acting is at least some way toward committing hte act.

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. "Well, I would have helped" is usually a lie.

Mission accomplished — Fire Ologist

Congrats :)

Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? — Fire Ologist

This is a bit sleight-of-handy. That's not what's happening here. They are informing the interpretation of the argument. That, to me, is bad form in the sense that you are in la-la land if you anthropomorphize nature to support a factual or logical argument because you think its relevant - and really not contacting the argument if you think it addresses it. I understand flowery language for engagement, but this isn't hte place.

The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals. — Fire Ologist

Your use of 'necessity' in this paragraph is perplexing. None of it necessary. That invokes a (whats called) cosmic level of intent which simply doesn't exist. But, for the sake of discussion, let's grant it - why is this conclusion at all a problem? Things are cyclical as best we can tell and don't adhere to much in terms of form (over such long periods, that is).

Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics” — Fire Ologist

I would say to some degree, this one gets a bit of traction. I think its worth discussing why Ethics even matters to this discussion beyond whether or not one feels that having children is ethical. I don't. I can explain why and see where other's are lets say not making sense, but if someone simply rejects that suffering is ethically relevant to whether or not life obtains I can't argue with that. That's their view, and IMO ethics its nothing but personal emotional response - if you're a fairly logical person, you can get further but that's all. But again, 'necessity' is not a good word here. These things didn't have to happen. The natural necessity you invoke didn't see the Dinosaur asteroid coming, that's for sure.

seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe? — Fire Ologist

If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol)

What? — Fire Ologist

Hard to know what you're not getting. Swap humans for God. God's decision to remove the ocean. Human's decision not to procreate. They are diametrically opposed in the two stories we've told. If you can be clearer about what's not landing, I'd be happy to draw more parallels.

Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives? — Fire Ologist

Sly digs aside, you have entirely misunderstood what is being said here. If someone tells me they have a good life, yet all they ever do is complain to me about their life.... *shrug*. I don't have to even explain why they are wrong there. They are lying to themselves. "quality of life" is subjective, where a count of suffering is not. Don't conflate the two.

Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash? — Fire Ologist

Possibly, for sure.. but i see absolutely no argument that gets anywhere near the realm of getting that off the ground. Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, personally, but in aggregate. Most people are flat-out delusional about how good their life is because evolution has provided us with several incredible illusions to keep us procreating. Which is arbitrary, unnecessary and IMO bad for all involved. We do not need to procreate, other than to procreate, whcih is tautological crap. And even more importantly, most people are completely ignorant to the suffering of others. This is partially why polly-anna syndrome is so rife. Most people don't have a fucking clue how bad the majority of people's lives are - and this obviously a sliding scale. People are getting more ignorant about others over time, which the strict number of people suffering at the extremes comes down. But the number of people not majoratively suffering is vanishing. More slaves than ever, more concentrated wealth, authority and power than at most points in history (though, this is to do with population booms as much as form).

The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman — Fire Ologist

Accepting the over-simplification, yes. This does fall to women at some stage of hte analysis (careful of the alphabet soup). I see no issue there. That's just a fact of how humans procreate (the woman chooses, essentially, whether it comes to fruition). But, I think this is a bit dull of a version of the discussion. Whoever makes the choice is the culpable one. It's not all that interesting that at some stage the woman has the ultimate say (also, that's not always true anyway - men are larger and stronger on average and can physically force a woman to carry to term - which, obviously, is unethical already so we're fine heh).

we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering — Fire Ologist

We can. Yet, those alive will suffer for it, almost invariably. Yet another reason not to procreate - the possibility of having to go through an abortion.

To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever? — Fire Ologist

Not in any way whatsoever, and I have to say I do not think your run up to this illustrated a support for this conclusion.

Men choose to have children. If men never chose to have children and women were surreptitiously getting pregnant, or carrying to term then this gets some truck, but hte fact is men choose to have children and in fact have been the prime drivers behind procreation for hte majority of history. Only in the last seventy years or so have women had any control over when to conceive, carry and birth children with any lets call it accuracy.

Men actually seem more likely to break antinatalist 'rules' by breaking several other deontological rules.

This all said, perhaps it would make more sense to make an evolutionary argument:

Evolution wants you procreate. It will delude you to this end. This doesn't make your life better. It is a parasitic kind of manipulation of you body by your genes, to have more, and less happy, children (that is biased, and its illustrative, to be clear - not trying to sneak it in). This functions the exact same way drug-seeking behaviour functions in addicts. You have to break the cycle to avoid the hurt.

I think that claim is wrong. We do not require evidence for existence. — Tobias

Then you're flat-out wrong because the second part is false.

I find the way you write offensive, facetious and displaying an arrogance which is I think both unnecessary and baseless — Tobias

I don't care. You're stubborn in your incoherence so this is par for the course.

We are stuck with having to make a choice, even about what we claim to know. — Fire Ologist

I don't disagree, but I don't think its relevant. This could be the case,and it would still logically be incoherent to claim belief without knowledge. The justification isn't that relevant here IMO.

If you are going to logically deny the existence of God, — Pantagruel

You're not talking about atheism, so that's cool.

Or is it inferred from recognizing or interpreting the experience as a typical near death experience because one has seen alleged near death experiences depicted or described? — jkop

Generally, there must be an 'actual' near death-ness to the experience. However, there isn't a 'typical' experience so it seems pretty shoddy to even posit this as a way to explicate some kind of after-death consciousness. Seems, prima facie, not relevant.

If there were some kind of proto-typical experience (where you could calibrate for cultural baggage and get roughly the same form as with some psychedelics) then we'd get somehwere. As it is, they are closer to drug-type experiences than much else - with even less homogenaiety!

THIS WAS SITTING IN DRAFTS. IM NOT ENTIRELY STANDING BEHIND A LOT OF THIS

Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor. — Fire Ologist

This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..

But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm. — Fire Ologist

There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one.

But the rest isn’t fairly arguable? — Fire Ologist

Could be. But I found this to be the sore red thumb of the lot, so figure best to tackle this first.

I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person. — Fire Ologist

While i understand the avenue you're taking here, it's not apt.
Procreating is not analogous to maintainence of life. If someone is alive, there's a consequence to doing nothing. Not so around procreation. There is a neutral, or a positive (i.e nothing, or a new person (capable of suffering)).

And no need to consider what other things we cause by not procreating? As long as we don’t inflict suffering we will be doing good in this world, be good for this world - not arguable? — Fire Ologist

No. This isn't relevant in any way. We're starting at zero. If the position is that people must procreate I can only laugh. I don't see another conclusion there, if you want to establish a 'wrong' in not procreating.

Getting a little emotive here, which you criticized me for above. — Fire Ologist

Not at all. I would guess if it's making you uncomfortable, i could repeat those comments :P
The point here, is that most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life. Do you seriously think that isn't a reasonable inference, ignoring emotionality?

And why are happiness and/or purpose, as you frame the delusion, the only counters to suffering? If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking life is, on balance, suffering, then you would reject anyone who viewed any life as on balance, not suffering. Screw purpose. I’m enjoying just trying to argue with you here. — Fire Ologist

Here's some meat. IFF I am deluded in that way, then yes I would. I, currently, have zero reason to think so and plenty of good reason to think the opposite. I can note all the happiness and purpose in my life without having to ignore what I think is a good, logical conclusion about my life. It is, overall, a waste of time.

Antinatalism analogized to, ironically, a life guard, keeping people out of the dangerous waters. That’s backwards. Antinatalism would eliminate the lives to guard, not merely keep lives on the land to live safely. A lifeguard would inflict a riddance of the ocean to those safely on land, not a riddance of living, like antinatalism would. — Fire Ologist

That is not the analogy at all. The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean. But this is a little silly. An Antinatalist would call both analogies dumb and just say "Why can't you take the metaphor as the metaphor instead of reading other things into it?"

Living is simply different than suffering and cannot be summarized as only suffering. — Fire Ologist

Antinatalists don't do so. Not quite sure how to respond, in this case.

Bottom line to me, in a raw, physicalist sense, life is prior to suffering — Fire Ologist

I don't disagree. But it hasn't anything to say about antinatalism.

Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action. — Fire Ologist

I really don't know what you could mean here. Life is plenty of things - overwhelmingly: suffering. It is not right to procreate in the face of that fact (on my account). It goes no deeper than that. All of the other fluff obviously exists. It has nothing to do with the arguments, as i see them.

Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less. — Fire Ologist

This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional to me. I'm unsure how to approach it, given that take. There is no 'intention' behind nature. We're not acting 'against' anything by not having children. We have a choice, and to me, it's a clear one. To you, either not so, or the 'other' choice.

What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?

If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering. — Fire Ologist

This is very interesting and you've picked up on a couple of conceptual issues that I think probably sort of float around among antinatalists without any real answers. For me, the antinatalist can abort. Should abort. But this is in line with most other reasonable takes on abortion: Up to a point. I'm not willing to commit to a timeframe, but its obvious at some stage a fetus can 'experience' and prior to that, go for gold.

The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.

Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon? — Fire Ologist

Few points here:

1. They would not have to agree. A zygote is not a person. The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this.
2. To - some - degree, i get what you're saying. But 'future people' is a bit ambiguous here. A fetus which could survive outside the womb is probably already a person. Prior to that, you're still int he realm of "whether or not" in terms of making a choice, to my mind.

No. The non existence of registries is not among the limititative grounds for annulment of marriages under Dutch law. — Tobias

I take it you're not reading these responses thoroughly:
If there is no evidence you are married, the marriage doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with 'Dutch' law. This is fact of any legal matter. It would be the exact same scenario if you were (in the proper sense) never married, yet claim you were 'still' married. Same thing. It doesn't exist. Your cliam is simply your claim and is at the mercy of the legal proofs you can present.
A discussion about whether it did exist in 'our' scenario here gets further. Annulment is only relevant if you can make out the marriage to begin with. You can't. The scenario i've set up is exactly that. You pretending it's not is beyond me, at this stage.

There is my GF and I were married on the 10 of the 12th, 1998. It has not been disbanded. I just have no means of proving it. — Tobias

Then you cannot have it annulled. It's getting tedious, because this part here leads me to think you are trolling. If you cannot prove the marriage, you can't have it annulled or otherwise. It isn't there to be attended, at all, except in your mind. Which i already gave you. A lot of people allow this to suffice for their entire life. But they don't then pretend they are legally married, either. A legal marriage requires instruments of law. Wont be addressing this further unless you stop being dead wrong (or, you try it and provide me a judge's opinion which supports the idea that an assertion at law is as good as an instrument).

That might be because the money stopped existing. The marriage did not stop existing. The wedding ring may well be lost in that catastrophe as well, but so what? — Tobias

*sigh*.

You are not mean, just a bully and a silly one. — Tobias

This says quite a lot more than you wanted it to, I would think.

Now Amadeus seems to state that when the promise cannot be proven it is somehow not there. — Tobias

ONce again, conflating 'promise' with legal obligation. What is going on here, Tobias? Are you literally not reading the responses to your points, or what? Equivocating like this is extremely bad form and ensures we could never have a fruitful exchange. I would implore to not do this

I was actually lying. I was not — Tobias

No one claimed this. I didn't claim this. I claimed you would be wrong. You would be. It's become clear you're making arguments for me and then trying to beat them. Please dont.

By definition we were married, as it is given in the facts of the case. The court has established the facts wrongly, based on of knowledge and on the rule of evidence. — Tobias

Here is where "A discussion about whether it did exist in 'our' scenario here gets further" comes in. You've worded this equivocally. You're not currently married if that legal instrument no longer exists. But you can absolutely make the argument for the legal system to carry through your 'promise' into a new legal instrument. I have no idea why you're having trouble teasing these two things apart. I have not once at any stage tried to make the point that your mental state of believing you are married is either dishonest, or an act of some legal kind. It is delusional in the way i described earlier. It is incorrect. You were married and that fact no longer obtains, legally. You need to do the above to reestablish the legal marriage. There is simply no grey area here to be argued. I think you're still, despite my noting it gently several times, conflating a legal marriage and your attachment to your 'wife'. Not really my thing to do so.

That seems paradoxical. — Ludwig V

I think claiming belief and not knowledge is paradoxical. The claim to 'faith' is, to me, an indication of dishonesty or delusion.

belief implies one is not certain — Ludwig V

+

I'm happy to assert that that is not the case — Ludwig V

If these two hold some water (I think your wording is a little confused, but I'm with you generally) then belief implies one is certain. If that is hte case, then belief implies knowledge, even if it isn't claimed. Its a foundational aspect of certainty, even if it's misguided or unjustified (which would be the case here - hence, delusion - I use that word with faarrrrrr less disparagement than is usually imported, btw**).

But I would say that a belief must be capable of being true and most people think that religious doctrines are true or false. — Ludwig V

Hmm. This is an odd one for me, because in practice i'd have to nod along to this and roughly agree. But, on consideration, I don't think belief is apt for something capable of being "true" in the sense of 'veridical'. Belief is redundant in any scenario that this is the case. Belief is simply jumping the gun and, again, I think a form of either dishonesty or delusion as a result. "my truth" is where people get away with holding "veridical" beliefs that are, in fact, not veridical at all (perhaps your objection to the objective/subjective split gets some air here).

**to me, delusion implies that someone has simply formed a conclusion without adequately assessing the relevant states of affairs. That could be for any number of reasons, but suffice an example where someone has read a meme on Instagram about how something in psychology works and forms a belief about it. Totally unjustified and so the belief is a delusional, rather than the person is deluded. They might just be lazy. That may need further parsing, i'm aware. The addition of actively refusing to review one's beliefs is another matter.

Here is a statement from a highly-regarded Catholic philosopher, Joseph Pieper, with whom I have only passing familiarity: — Wayfarer

About the preceding paragraph: I think I roughly agree, but I think the demands on one's character for religious purposes are systematically learned through manipulation of hte mind. With philosophy, i think it's a "If you're this kind of person, you'll be apt for such and such". The former seems to be capable of intercession regardless of one's "base" character for lack of a better term.

On the quote itself, several points to me make it entirely ridiculous and incoherent. I'll quote the points at which this became apparent to me:

moral virtues become deeply embedded in our character

links the knowing of truth to the condition of purity.

the virtues of faith, hope, and love

Alll three of these lines render the rest of the passage nonsensical, and clearly manipulation into religiously informed worldview instead of a logical.

I didn't write this ... — Apustimelogist

Quite clearly. It also seems you’ve not understood it. But this just adds to the pile..

point taken, but ironically - it’s case by case. Religious groups, for instance, can quite reasonably be profiled given some very cursory case-specific information (ie if you’re Catholic, are you practising?). Many very helpful applications here.

But those let’s call them arbitrary “attributes” you’re complete right. But if a particular issue exists only in that group, regardless of prevalence, we’re right to ascribe it to that group. But this takes beinf an adult which most discussing social politics are not. Vibe tends to be that Their group is diverse despite being a special interest group, but the out-group is not despite being literally everyone else… seems the common take so your point is very apt

if the insured businesses are more likely to be vandalized then it is reasonable for the insurance company to charge higher premiums — Leontiskos

You can rearrange this sentence to adequately respond to most charges of racism/sexism/transphobia etc..
Generally speaking, that aspect of the person/group/behaviour/whatever else... is actually not relevant to the policy, and some other aspect is. It is not the fault of policy that it has more frequent interaction with a particular group due to their behaviour or self-affected identity.

"States of people's minds" suggests that you are either a relativist or a subjectivist. Or have I misunderstood? I do agree, however, that the binary classification between objective and subjective is most unhelpful when applied to ethics. — Ludwig V

As best i can bring myself to adopt a label, its emotivism.

There is something of a battle going on at the moment between belief and knowledge as the appropriate category. The (mistaken) idea that the difference between belief and knowledge means that saying one believes in God implies some sort of uncertainty, so people who strongly believe in God want to claim to know, while people who don't believe in God (or don't believe that belief in God can be rationally justified) cannot possibly concede that. It's very confusing. — Ludwig V

There is nothing coherent about claiming a belief and not knowledge unless you also claim the thing cannot be known - that would relegate the position, though. I don't see any problem there, myself. You may not be able to apply a certain framework to the claim, but I "believe" there's a Yule log in my fridge, it's because I have sufficient reason to believe so. That is, on the personal level, knowledge. If someone is claiming 'knowledge' having had no experiences that would actually indicate to the person the thing they believe - they are just being dishonest or are deluded. I actively discount those scenarios because I don't think we're taking about those people..

P1: Life is suffering. — Fire Ologist

This is definitely the most arguable aspect of the whole thing. I actually do sometimes swing on this one, but as a living person it hits me as patent that I'm off the rails at that point. I am not important to my own considerations here. It is whether or not causing people to exist is ethical. If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking your life is, on balance, purposeful and happy, you will reject this premise and (whether erroneously or not) be fine with procreation. The other premises don't seem to be shakeable in this way.

Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor. — Fire Ologist

This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..

But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm. — Fire Ologist

There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one. We're not trying to get rid of oceans to avoid drownings - we're trying to stop people swimming where drowning is a clearly likely consequence (very shaky analogy, but there you go - can refine later if needed).

Is this not the long and the short of it? — ENOAH

Yes. But "many things" includes many things one would not trade non-existence in for, if the choice were at all a coherent one. If someone is "many things" but in there is psychopathic sexual deviant, we aren't inclined to let it roll.

Er, I think antinatalism is dead in the water due to this argument: — Leontiskos

That isn't an argument.

This is because it opposes the natural order, and to oppose the natural order requires appealing to some vantage point outside of the natural order. — Leontiskos

For example, given that Benatar’s argument opposes the natural order, it cannot have been derived from the natural order. So if Benatar really thinks his argument holds good, then he must hold that his own mind and the knowledge it has come to know is super-natural, transcending nature. — Leontiskos

Simply put, what? Total non sequitur. Sorry to say, but this just hits as red herring designed to impugn the logic of an argument on a naturalistic basis. Who gives a flying toss if its "against the natural order"? You'd need to establish what that is, and how it is derived (in light of hte extremely novel consciousness humans currently enjoy (see what i did there..)) in a way which could logically make Benatar's points untenable. You can't support these claims - only make them. I do smell the overwhelming aroma of religiosity coming through here... where did the evil bit come in?
Either, you have that knowledge, or his arguments are as good as yours. One for thee, one for me. Though, if you've simply been overzealous and mean only to posit that his arguments are inadequate and not that his position is wrong due to other arguments, sure. It reads as if you're trying to present a logical basis for rejecting his arguments. But, they literally boil down to your tastes regarding epistemology it seems. And I'd say your comments there are.. bizarre... That said, you'd very much enjoy prof. Tim Mulgan's Ananthropocentric Purposivism.

No, that is not how legal obligation works. You confuse obligations with rules of evidence. If I am married legally and the marriage is not legally dissolved I am simply married — Tobias

No. This is a complete misunderstanding. If there is literally no evidence of hte marriage the law does not hold a position on it. It does not exist. It is not there to be spoken about (again, if you're conflating legal obligation and moral obligation, which you clearly are - that's fine, but wrong).

That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias

Yes. That's literally what it would mean. Although, you've used misleading terminology - there is no marriage to be annulled in that scenario. The same way if your bank loses its server, you have no money. You cannot claim that wealth, if it literally disappears from the register in which it exists.

You could have dispensed with your silly condescending tone, but here we go... — Tobias

Its not condescending. You are very wrong, and adamant about it. It's not easy to pretend that's a reasonable position to take.

It is indeed beyond you but that is not really my problem. — Tobias

It is if you wanted to make a point. You didn't. It was a red-herring.

No, it If I remembered making a promise but I did not make a promise, there is no promise. — Tobias

Ok, we're done here. Your inconsistency is becoming funny, and that's going to make me mean. ALmost every response you've made to the other two interlocutors instantiates my points and defeat your own. Wild.

This is perplexing to me. I say that because the use of hallucinogens or psychedelics are associated with psychotic states of the mind. Psychosis is by definition a break from reality. How can a break from reality bring one closer to reality? — Shawn

Regarding counterfactuals, and the doubt in your mind about these or some of these experiences, why is there so much glamourization of psychedelics? I mentioned this in another comment; but, people think there is some kind of 'truth' to these experiences; but is there really any truth to them? — Shawn

I can adequately respond to this one. As a precursor, though, all the data in this area is preliminary and you can't particularly take seriously un-replicated results that are experimental rather than reportage or observational. Therefore, all claims in this area need a pinch of salt. However, the overwhelming academic position is that its all 'leaning positive' rather than negative, when controlled and overseen.

In short, that claim is wrong:

https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/ (its the same report, essentially)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269881115596156 Krebs and Johanssen reply here if you scroll

Largely, that association is a media-driven one. What Psychedelics (though, this is more 'on-point' for MDMA as a conceptual description) tend to really do is reduce bloodflow in areas of the brain like the Thalamus and anterior cingulate cortex that help process emotional data and manifest "thoughts" with valences. Thus, you 'receive' thoughts without the (usually) highly-entrenched valence you have pre-recorded. This is why MDMA users in controlled environments can, for instance, process war trauma without the 'shell shock' reaction. It's a reason why Mescaline tends to be something that heals generational/family episodes of disconnection.

For these other psychedelics, the action is a little bit more ambiguous(mesc, particularly), but hte effect appears to be roughly the same. This can be applied to whatever psychology has caused an addiction or other self-destructive behaviour. This is also why the experiences tend to have a noetic (truer than true) quality to them. People have experiences of (real) clarity and insight into their own behaviour and psychology that (at least they believe) could not have been accessed another way. Arguable, its the experience per se, not the access point that matters, but in any case, the 'truth' of the experience seems to be far more to do with its practicable element.

Most psychedelics have a very different historical milieu and the overall experiences differ - but the detail, in terms of specific psycho-spiritual (as they say) outcomes is fairly uniform in these controlled environments. That can be expected when they're all roughly in the same two families (serotonergics and phenethylamines).

I think the problem is that people having these subjective experiences that result in objectively 'good' outcomes in their life find it hard to assign that as arbitrarily access as part of the drug experience. But, that's tough luck IMO. Its a drug experience.

This has been a rant, but it's also been a significant and important part of my personal and professional life for going on 20 years.

As a side note, which I think even the enquiry is, the 'glamorization' I think is a result of two things:
Psychedelics present one with novel psychology; colours, shapes, feelings, experiences you've never even conceived of before (in the best cases). They are extreme in terms of metaphysical thought. Its all bright, shiny, spectacular stuff - it's hard not to rave. Second, I think that the fact people are spending 20, 30, 50 years suffering heinously from a debilitating mental anguish that nothing has had any effect on - and within six hours you're 'healed' and on a path to true functionality gives reason enough to allow for some evangelising. But, salt to be taken: the risks are real too.

When paychologists and psychiatrists turn into modern day shamans, things usually go downhill. — Shawn

I don't think this is true. Psychology is largely nonsense anyway, but that aside, psychiatry has clearly failed in its endeavours. Shamanism, in general, seems to be doing a better job when syncretized with modern medicinal practices like control groups and mental support. In that environment, the results are rigorously outstanding.

Ill leave off the quote and go forth:

1. an adult is one who has reached sexual maturity. However, given that we're trying to argue about definitional norms, one who has reached the age of majority is hte correct answer. This leaves a huge amount of wiggle room for different institutions to think about different policies, and the knock-on effects of higher-level policies (like age of majority). I don't think, in that context, you can just throw up your hands - OR completely reinvent the wheel, with any success.

2. The 'what if's' are prevarication in this area. We all know what a human is. If you don't, that's not really an issue anyone else needs to explain. If your questioning tactic were taken seriously, we're looking at Furries are legitimately (lets say) reptilian beings, when that is not the case. The AI example is a red herring. Is the person Human? That can be ascertained prior to any 'changes'.

3. No. No it isn't. A female is well-defined across several contexts (electronics, for example) and humans are no different. There are precisely zero humans who are not male or female. There are no in-betweens. They do not exist (unless you've got one hidden away, which would be fine with me)This is because the species Human is sexually dimorphic. Phenotypic ambiguity is irrelevant. Is your SRY active?

None of this is to say "use the above to write policies, and leave the rest alone". But it is to say pretending these fundamental starting points are seriously questionable is not reasonable.

Oh, discrimination is not only not a negative, it's essential to human existance. Since in it's absence we'd treat each other identically ie we'd never learn from experience. — LuckyR

Discrimination is literally the function of higher-order thinking.

(thanks Leontiskos - I had missed this)

How can something that does not exist occur? — Tobias

A flight of fancy doesn't exist. Yet it occurs. Plenty of things occur without existing. Including causal relations, strictly put. Not sure you're thinking...

It shows that utterances, whether they are recorded or not, have actual legal consequences. — Tobias

False. I went through this giving examples of both conceptually. You are just wrong. A person claiming bare that someone promised them something isn't even a legal consideration. It's a nothing. A nonsense. It isn't going to even get you listened to by the judiciary in any form, unless you have some evidence. Even that, usually, needs leave to be adduced.

However, not all legal facts rely on them being recorded and entered into a registry of sorts. It is also wholly beside the point. — Tobias

That's true - but they must be presentable in a reliable and usually, corroborated form. You seem to think not? It is entirely on point re: whether you ahve a point.

They adjudicate claims. If I cannot prove my claim, then it is tossed out of the window, it is as easy as that — Tobias

You could have stopped here, acknowledged you have defeated your own point, and moved on. But here we go...

but that does not mean my claim to being married is somehow false — Tobias

If you can't prove it in court, it probably does. If there is literally no record of your marriage, you are not married. That's how a legal obligation works. If you're conflating moral obligations with legal ones, that's a bit rich.

Your materialist view, taken to its logical consequence, leads to idealism, 'to be is to be perceived' in your case, 'to be is to be recorded'. — Tobias

This is plainly self-contradictory. Not sure what you thought would come of it. It also really has nothing to do with my views. I am telling you what is required for a legal obligation to obtain.

That does not render them non existent though. The promise is there, the obligation has arisen, it simply cannot be proven. That is why I think your view comes down to a rather crude form of idealism. — Tobias

Why you are mentioning ontological positions is beyond me so I'm just going to ignore that dumbass conclusion.

It literally renders them non-existent. If you have a false memory of making a promise, does it exist? No. You can't prove it. You have absolutely nothing but your memory to rely on. THe promise doesn't exist. Your apparent attachment to it does.

1. There is no ethical way to treat non-existing people, — Fire Ologist

The ethics are to do with our actions now. Not unborn people. The potential suffering itself is not hte moral crux. The action that (on the balance of probabilities) will make it come about, are. This is a gross oversimplication (or, overcomplexification, depending where you stand) of the point of antinatalism. That said, this is just another notch in my belt of Emotivism. Only your emotional response to that potential suffering could inform any decision around it. There is no ethical, normative principle which could entail either having, or not having children in the strict sense of those statements.

Suffering is not enough a reason to eliminate all humanity. — Fire Ologist

This is, again, an emotive position. To some people it is. There isn't a way to argue for one or the other, really, other than Benatar's clearly apt a-symmetry argument. Accept, or don't.

Antinatalism is not directed at preventing suffering, as it prevents everything. — Fire Ologist

This is a non sequitur. It prevents the imposition of human life and nought else. The suffering goes with it. I can't quite grasp why you'd make such a wildly overt overstatement of the position. Another below..

The suffering in the world still isn’t enough to justify ending the world. — Fire Ologist

-------------------

It is wishful thinking to prevent potential suffering in non-existing beings. — Fire Ologist

Then it would stand to reason you are an anti-abortionist? Someone who would not look twice pulling out in the road? Wouldn't remove broken glass from a playground? These are all potential harms to no one in particular (the A-symmetry argument beats this anyway). A starker example is, why keep NICU's sterile? Hehehe.

The vast majority would rather live this life than no life at all. — Fire Ologist

Benatar, particularly, addresses this issue. It is far more likely the figure is closer to 80% (this is interpolation based on my thoughts along with his arguments around it). Polly-Anna syndrome is rife. Most people are genuinely mistaken about how often they suffer. That said, I'm unsure this is a particularly strong anti-natalist argument anyway. I don't care what living people think about their lives. The vast majority of anti-natalists hold that the living have a deep interest in continuing to live. Perhaps there are situations in whcih this isn't the case, but overall, its hard to find examples of that.

Your earlier two objections are to stronger arguments, and I think your objections are just your taste. They aren't logic objections or reasonable ways around the claims made. They just illustrate that you do not accept htem, prima facie. That's fine. None of that has to do with the strength or weakness of hte anti-natalist position other than how it strikes you (weakly, it seems).

Antinatalism isn’t tailored to the specific problem it is trying to prevent, and is way overboard of a response to just suffering. — Fire Ologist

It is a 1:1 match with its aim. That you're averse to non-existence is expected, but not relevant.

Nor is there any differential value in the variant examples I offered unless you have something against fat men or people who need transplants. Let me say something callous sounding.

There are way more people in the world than it can sustain, and we are destroying the ecosystem on which we depend. Therefore it is better that five people die than one. Assume the facts are true; is the moral logic wrong? This is the logic of accelerationism. Human population is in overshoot and the sooner it is radically reduced, the better it will be both for the planet and for humanity. Only the most fortunate will have a quick death by trolley; most will die of heat-stroke or starvation. — unenlightened

Hoo boy, this is going to be fun.

There is a patent difference between not knowing the identity(and potential value) of the people, and knowing the identity (and potential value) of those people. Ignore it? Sure. That's probably more moral. But if you simply don't see it - well, that's something for you to have a look at.

The bolded is clearly wrong. If you've had a look at the concentration of populations (take Bangladesh as an extremely inarguable example) resource management is clearly humanity's problem. Not space or available resource. Particularly not now (as opposed to say 1400AD (pretend the population was comparable globally)). It is absolutely stupidity to think that humans have somehow outgrown the planet. Like - that's Mikie level delusional.

That takes care of hte remainder, save for one thing: As against your suggestion, it is better for humanity and the planet that we go extinct over a reasonable time-line. These are simply positions we can claim without argument. I don't really understand how this comes along with 'the arguments' anyway.