Your case and my case sounds similar, just that I have to return to being a faculty after getting the degree (hopefully).

Technically, I'm an 'engineer' but only practicing within the confines of the academe (teaching and some research work). I don't think the corporate world would fit me -- people-management is a very stressful business.

I'm glad to share and I'm also grateful for your responses. I'm also curious about what other people are up to on a daily basis, especially how people spend the very long nights after work, hence this thread. : )

Nice. I'm not sure if I would be able to think of that response. Maybe it comes with experience -- you've already transcended being a guinea pig! : )

Study-leave is a paid leave for 2-4 years to get a degree, MS or PhD. So you're basically employed by the university but studying to get your degree.

So it's economics with a focus on energy? — Hoo

More like the other way around -- energy and electric power systems with focus on economics. Issues usually lie on pricing of electricity and what market and regulatory structures and mechanisms are best suited in a monopolized market.

Umm, both school and work I guess -- it's really hard to distinguish between the two when you are on study-leave. : )

They're mostly about energy/power system market and regulation. I also have a separate 'virtual pile' for my other coursework, but that can wait for next week.

Wow, that was comprehensive. : )

I've just finished taking breakfast and morning bath at around 1:47pm local time. Stayed up all night until 3am earlier watching anime.

I'm currently downloading Pokemon Reborn (fan-made). It's your regular Pokemon RPG set in a sort of post-apocalyptic world (my kind of game). The internet connection is currently really bad and the estimated time of completion is around 2-4 hours for the remaining 330 MB of data. I hope the download, installation, and gameplay won't disappoint.

I'll try to force myself to read the 'virtual' pile of conference papers that I have to read for my studies while waiting. #Priorities

Might be relevant (on hacking on a much larger scale):

The real story of Stuxnet
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-real-story-of-stuxnet

Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine’s Power Grid
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedented-hack-ukraines-power-grid/

NATO Recognizes Cyberspace as New Frontier in Defense
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-to-recognize-cyberspace-as-new-frontier-in-defense-1465908566

I was around 25 years old when I started to inquire deeper into the question of life's purpose. I'm pretty much contented with the necessities of life back then: food, shelter, monthly sustenance, etc. etc.

I have had a lot of free time and pretty much became bored in the existential sense, that is, everyday tasks seemed repetitive and tedious and when I'm free, I feel bored with lack of activity. I didn't find it especially satisfying to simply engage in 'new' and 'exciting' activities because "why bother?"

It was quite a depressing state. I might've been frowning most of the time and forcing fake smiles whenever I need to meet people so I minimized going out as much as possible.

What helped me during those times is having the outlet to freely discuss my thoughts and receive feedback from other people. The threads are in the old forum linked below if you are interested:

1, 2, 3

A problem well stated is a problem half-solved.

What seems to be the problem with living in a seemingly meaningless universe? : )

And it's become normalised, we've lost sight of the fact that theft and destruction of property are actually unethical behaviours. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Now that you mention it, maybe human behavior in the internet can provide a good working model on how social norms in a new community develop.

It can go something like, at first, everyone is shy but eventually starts exploring the limits of what one can do. It develops into a free-for-all game, but then it gets out of hand and rules are gradually established to determine which set of behaviors are acceptable. However, the lack of monopoly of control/violence in the internet makes it especially difficult for one party to dictate the behavior of the rest of the community. Or something like that.

It could also give us an idea on the inner workings of humanity in its rawest and unhindered forms.

It's a total waste of everyone's time. — Wayfarer

Not if you can earn/lose huge sums of money. #FollowTheMoneyTrail

This is also why I said we had to be politically active, so that we would help these street children and also make them grow up in a society which looked down upon perpetrating suffering. — darthbarracuda

Yep, go big or go home. Giving a bit of food or alms would send the wrong signals.

Today, not so much, because we have ways of ending the apparent plague of humanity (nukes, for example). — darthbarracuda

I agree, but again, the decision is on a case to case basis and one can't just generalize.

I for example, do believe that there is good in having nukes. In an ideal enlightened world, there is no need for armaments. But unfortunately, there is politics in this world; politics escalate to war; and only a show of force can end war. I do not agree to total nuclear disarmament, I would actually want at least one country to have the monopoly of this -- hoping that the wielders of these nukes would be, again, you guessed it, acting in good faith.

[...] and realize that us helping someone in all likelihood probably will not come back to haunt us. — darthbarracuda

It may not haunt us but it may haunt others (more) in the end, increasing the overall suffering.

One can only act in good faith if one decides that it is the best course of action. For example, deciding on not helping 'a bit' the street children is acting in good faith that they will eventually overcome their condition, reflect on their suffering, and make better decisions later in life. It's not like you're rubbing salt into the wound because the motivation is borne out of compassion for them and acting in good faith given one's personal worldview.

[...] thus such a fear would be unwarranted in a purely ideal situation where everyone is actually ethical or at least tries to be. — darthbarracuda

May be true in an ideal world where everyone is sort of like enlightened or semi-enlightened. But unfortunately, we don't have this so I feel that actions, no matter how inconsequential, will perpetuate this 'unenlightened' unexamined sort of worldly thinking. Sometimes, perpetuating this idea through 'helping a bit' leads to more suffering than doing nothing.

Still, the context of this is the helping-street-children example I described earlier. It's either you go big or go home in helping them.

What difference does intention make here, aside from legal considerations? — darthbarracuda

Feeling compassion is one thing and usually a prerequisite. Acting on one's feeling is another issue altogether and depends on a case-to-case basis depending partly on the severity of the matter and the consequences of 'helping'.

For example, in general, I feel torn in giving money or food to street children not because I don't want to help. I feel empathy or compassion about their condition, but helping them 'a bit' is another matter. I feel like this gives them an impression that when they grow up, it's OK to have children despite their financial means because they can get by with the help of others. Alleviating 'a bit' the suffering of one today can multiply to the suffering of many more in the future. Its like its either you go big or go home in helping in this case.

Sometimes, one can't avoid the feeling of helplessness and tragedy that one's actions are insignificant in the larger scale of things and can sometimes even do more harm than good. If one really one's to help and make a change, one can do so in good faith, hoping that everything will turn out for the better in the end -- but this is especially difficult if one has a predisposition to (psychological) pessimism.

[Not procreating] does not provide a transcendent victory over suffering. Those who lived still had horrible lives. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I have a feeling that Willow is saying that 'non-procreation' is not an answer to existing suffering. I feel that this may be the source of disagreement.

Preventing future suffering is one thing and dealing with existing suffering is another. I think there is some discussion about the latter in the earlier parts of the thread.

The immediate discussions only refer to preventing future suffering; it's not as if existing suffering is simply thrown out of the box.

@darthbarracuda

Obviously not, so I've WON! — Mayor of Simpleton

I thought it was pretty obvious that guns and bombs and what-nots mass-murder people. No guns and bombs and what-nots = no mass murder.

It doesn't take much thinking, more so philosophizing, to see this. ;)

But there obviously is, so you must be seeking some special kind of meaning. The ordinary type is good enough for me.

It seems as though you're setting yourself up for failure by setting out on a wild goose chase. — Sapientia

Yes, you can say that. Only, I have stopped actively seeking it or desiring that I'll ever find it.

Do you not at least agree that all of the lives that would be worth living are of greater importance than the rationale for bringing them into the world? Aren't the results more important? — Sapientia

I only see the struggle for nothing ala Sisyphus -- there are no results, especially not important results.

It's tragic, in my view, to perpetuate this.

Most people do not regret being alive and would choose to continue living because they think that it's worthwhile. Are they lying or mistaken? I believe them over you. — Sapientia

I wouldn't want this to come from me (it sounds elitist), but the following comes to mind: the unexamined life is not worth living.

Sure, it helps to seek guidance from others in forming one's worldview, but ultimately, one has to find one's own version of 'truth' for oneself.

I have already accepted that we won't agree, because I think the crux of the matter ultimately falls on the question of meaning.

If I get it correctly, you currently believe that there is value/meaning/purpose to be found in human existence. Hence, it is better for additional people to experience life.

I, on the other hand, currently believe that either there is no value/purpose/meaning in life or it is beyond human comprehension. Hence, there is no sense for new beings to be subjected to suffering in the first place.

I don't feel that we'll reach an agreement regarding this basic premise, at least for now and the immediate future, so I don't think I can share more than what I have already shared so far. :3

Maybe that can work too. The common thread between military intervention and limiting the availability of firearms is the control of violence.

It sure is a false dichotomy. There's the possibility of peace talks (traditional politicking) but I think a show of force is still needed before any such event.

Maybe killing Assad would lead to a beneficial shift in power in favor of a more civil government. And maybe not. — Bitter Crank

It would undoubtedly lead to this if we but wanted it to. — Thorongil

If only certain political figures have the decency, they would have stepped out of power just for the mere fact that the situation is already out of control.

What IS the appropriate measure that will end injustice and barbarism at minimal cost (cash, lost lives)? — Bitter Crank

Hi Bitter Crank,

Are you implying that doing nothing is better than military intervention? Or that military intervention is needed but the 'devil is in the details'. Because I think this is one of the fundamental questions that needs to be addressed.

Sure, we have limited information but we have to make do with what we have, act in good will, and hope for the best.

The particulars may vary but I suppose intervention is needed given the scope of the problem, not only in terms of the number of casualties in Syria but also its effects on neigboring countries in the Middle East and Europe in terms of "refugee divide".

Anyway, thanks for engaging. — John

Same here.

but moral principle would be applicable only to that one, or to those kinds of ones, not to others — John

OK, so I guess you're saying that the decision of procreation depends on one's own circumstances.

I'm assuming from here that you don't have a strong personal stand on this issue so I don't think I'll have other follow-up comments. :)

I think the very notion that reproduction requires moral justification is mistaken, unless we are talking about the question to varying life circumstances. — John

But I think some sort of justification is needed, which may or may not necessarily be about morality.

A simple answer to "why one would opt to procreate" would have to be answered. Because at the very least, we're talking about the welfare of a new life here. I don't think it's just a simple matter of just 'going with the norm' or 'just wanting to have a baby'.

If you think that the question depends on life circumstances, then what makes procreation acceptable in some circumstances and not in others? And as you may have noticed, I'm more interested in how procreation becomes acceptable in the cases where you think it is acceptable or deem it as a sort of a non-issue.

To try to think about [procreation] in relation to life in general is an impossible, incoherent task. — John

For me it makes sense if you accept certain claims. Its sad to hear to just dismiss this issue altogether and just go with the flow...

At this point, I am not ready to claim for the morality/immorality of procreation. I can only try to provide arguments why I think that procreation lacks sufficient justification in light of suffering.

And, in any case, again you are assuming that new human beings will be "subject to this inevitable fate" which is falling into the error of thinking that is the only correct way to view human life. — John

By 'inevitable fate', I mean, new beings will inevitably have to experience several levels of suffering. Whether few or many, they are sure to experience bodily pains, thirst, hunger, stress-inducing events, and probably the more problematic ennui, angst, and boredom. I think this is a given and makes sense, and using your own terms, a 'correct' fundamental view.

Whether one would like to attribute some value to this suffering or the overcoming of such suffering is the matter of debate. Because if one thinks that there is value to such things, then procreation is justifiable, i.e. the inevitable suffering that new beings will experience will be justified by some other good. On the other hand, if one does not see any value or meaning or purpose behind this suffering, one can feel unjustified in subjecting additional beings into such suffering.

If the "meat of the argument" consists in making a blanket claim about the rightness or wrongness of life and/ or reproduction, then any "sense of the argument" is a chimera produced by a category error. — John

I see. But in the end, one has to settle down for some kind of worldview which makes some inkling of (personal) sense.

In the above example, for me, claiming (A) that procreation is not justified is derived from the value-judgment (B) that there is no value in suffering. Judging whether (A) is sensical or not depends on whether you accept (B) or not. What I'm saying from this thread is that if one accepts (B), then (A) makes sense.

On the other hand. as I understand, claiming that (C) procreation is OK (can be justified) is derived from (D) that there is some value in human existence. For me, (D) is less sensible than (B) simply because I still haven't found a convincing narrative what this value is in human existence.

I feel that what you disagree with is the claim (B) and not per se (A). If so, I agree that this is not the only view there is, more so the 'correct' one. (A) is only invalid in so far as you deem (B) unacceptable -- a matter of which is highly subjective and of which no one really knows the 'correct' claim.

However, if you disagree with (B), and claim (C), I feel it is just calling names and doesn't help advance the discussion if you merely say that "I disagree with (B)" without expounding on some sort of something like (D).



There are a lot of nuances in the terminologies that I left out for simplicity. I'm not sure though if this will work out in trying to convey what I mean to say...

I may agree that that 'meat of the argument' makes sense but at the same time question the claim that 'it is the only correct view'. Agreeing with a part of the argument does not necessarily mean that I agree with the rest.

I try to overlook the 'only-correct-view claim' because I don't think commenting on such points will lead anywhere. I'm much more interested in understanding what motivates such a claim, which is, whether the 'meat of the argument' makes sense or not.

And it is inherently biased. After all, my understanding and making-sense of claims greatly depends on my experiences and worldview. And of course, the ability of the poster to make himself sensible.

In some sense that's true enough, but schopenhauer1 does speak as though his or her view of the world is the only correct one. — John

I see. I usually try to look past this and just focus on the meat of the argument. If the argument makes sense, it does not matter to me whether the poster believes it is the one and only correct one.

There is no warrant for claiming that life predominately consists in, or must predominately consist in, suffering for others. — John

I think that the 'predominance' of suffering in life takes secondary importance. The fact that there is suffering that we need to overcome in the first place should be at least a matter of great concern -- more so given that a majority of humanity ignorantly/haphazardly create new beings who will inevitably experience this.

What is sufficient justification to subject new human beings to this inevitable fate?

Are you assuming that this subjectivism is the only correct view of the matter? — John

I don't understand the question. Is the question: "Am I assuming that [pessimism] is the only correct view of matter?"

If this is the question, I would like to reiterate that I think no one knows absolutely what is a 'correct' or 'incorrect' view. For me, the claim that 'life is suffering' and the arguments arising from this just makes much more sense from the view that X is inherently good, e.g. virtue is good in itself and must be pursued.

Well at least that's how I view it for now.

If the question is: "Are there really only subjective views?"...

...then my personal opinion is that yes, there are only but subjective views. It's difficult to imagine for anyone to ever really know The 'correct' answer, there are only our own projections and interpretations of the world. We make do with whatever it is we have, and from this, we extract value-judgments of the world.

What you fail to see is that what you say about the nature of human life does not present the one 'correct' view, but is merely the projection of your state of mind onto the world. — John

Isn't this a given for everyone? Does anyone really know the 'correct' view? Aren't we all just projecting our own states of mind onto the world?

The questions posed stand on themselves and we have to make do with what we have to try to answer them, e.g. whether trying to invoke the transcendent or inherent goodness or not. Either approach is but a projection of our states of mind to the world. Neither is absolutely 'correct' nor 'incorrect', only 'makes sense' or 'does not make sense' in view of the purported assumptions.

The point is, for me, comments like this steers away from the really juicy discussions. It's my first time to use such terms in discussions but maybe this is what they call a red herring, "something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue" (wiki).

The Stoics were concerned precisely with how to transform the state of mind and thus transform the view of the world.

Your mischaractization of the Stoics is thus the result of trying to push a simplistic opinion about something you obviously have no experience or understanding of. — John

What does calling out one's expertise on the subject matter attain in light of advancing the debate? Do the arguments presented get invalidated/watered down when the proponent is inexperienced?

Rather than focusing on trying to understand where the arguments are coming from and providing rebuttals, the attack is on the credibility of the proponent. Maybe this is what they call ad hominem, "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining" (wiki).

----

TLDR: What is your intention in posting this comment? How did it contribute to the discussion?

OK so maybe you just want to point out that our worldviews are limited by our experiences. But supposing that there is really lack of expertise and experience, does it automatically invalidate the questions and arguments presented?

Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? — Benkei

Sigh. It's sad to imagine that the discussions going on in this thread is probably not a long shot away from the actual discussions in halls of power. It's heart-breaking. [Connection to the OP established, now I can rant. :) ]

Its sad to see suffering of actual people on the ground as abstracted or taking secondary importance to some greater ideology that must be solved first before taking action.

What I get from Thorongil's comment is along the lines of: "Guys, there are [a lot] of people dying, in pain, have nothing to eat, are displaced, are made feel unwelcome as refugees, etc. etc. Is it not possible to resolve the immediate and obvious suffering first before resolving the ideological differences?"

What I get is that with the current state of affairs in Syria, intervening is better that doing nothing. It is out of control (does anyone disagree?) and needs outside intervention. Intervention would of course mean 'bloody intervention' -- what can one expect from the scale of the problem?

One of the reasons why I believe that a (hopefully benevolent) group of people should have monopoly of violence is precisely because of things like this. War is the natural evolution of unresolved politics and sad at it may sound, only a show of power will stop this.

It may be idealistic and impractical but a possible way forward is to provide military intervention to monopolize the violence, provide aid in reconstruction and setting up basic industries (agriculture, education, healthcare), and assist in setting up some form of government when things get a bit stable. Some might argue that this is not worth pursuing because it will eventually end up in shambles because the 'underlying problem' is not addressed. Err, wouldn't establishing peace and order first and foremost a prerequisite to this?

I believe I brought this up many times in the past, and OglopTo has just brought it up, presumably independently, again here — schopenhauer1

Segue: I actually first encountered this issue in the old site and I must say that I get a lot of the ideas from your and other's posts there. :)

Thanks for responding. Here's what I get from your reply:

1. Presence of suffering in life is not sufficient reason not to procreate.

2. That it is a good thing for new people to get to experience the joys in life is reason enough [to procreate]. It is not necessary to explain why

3. There is some value in human existence. More specifically, you place value on a life-well-lived. You deem allowing new beings to experience this as altruistic.

4. Since majority are glad that they are alive, it is likely that the new generation will feel the same way.

5. You believe that life will, more often than not, turn out to be 'worthwhile'. You're willing to gamble that a new life will turn out to be good rather than bad because the odds are in your favor.

6. While you think it isn't advisable, for the unfortunate, in case of really awful situations, someone's offspring can opt for suicide.

7. That procreation is a one-way contract is a non-issue.

8. [Humanity] will be 'worse off' if it goes extinct.

9. That procreation is 'just the way things are' holds weight in the debate.

Wow. I think that we disagree on almost all of the above that I'm not sure if I can flesh out a detailed response.

So I guess I'll just leave it here for now. :)

My bad, I haven't progressed much.

The reson I 'don't understand' your posts are that they are totally unintelligible, they don't, and never have, made a lick of sense. The sooner everyone else on this forum realises that, the better off they'll be. — Wayfarer

What I get though from TheWillowOfDarkness is that what he defines as 'infinite' is something that is ;transcendent' in a way that it is beyond human comprehension/experience.

I interpret such ideas as the realisation of being trapped in an endless cycle of repetitive and pointless actions, so it is actually the soul's yearning for release. — Wayfarer

I have not really read about Nietzche's Eternal Recurrence and Buddhist/Hindu reincarnation but I have this preconception that it represents a cycle of pointless actions which is perpetuated even further by birthing new generations of people.

I don't think these ideas are to be taken literally, but instead symbolically.

WARNING: Long post ahead!

I didn't just call names, though, did I? — Sapientia

OK, my bad. I only responded to your immediate reply.

At this point, I'm not sure if I'm ready to argue that procreation is immoral per se, but so far, I think it lacks sufficient justification.

I think we agree in some points like the inevitability of suffering in life and that there's no way to remove it from human existence so I'll just look at the other striking points.

---

From you reply, I get the following:

1. There is value in human existence and its perpetuation, hence, human extinction should be avoided.
2. Offsprings give parents joy. Parents want their offspring to experience joy.
3. You're glad to have been born, even if it was born out of selfish reasons. You see no harm in creating a new being.

For me, it wouldn't suffice to use one of the following as justification for procreation:

(1) I want a child because of <insert selfish reason here>.

E.g. I want someone to take care of me when I grow up, I want someone to take over the family business, I want someone to give me joy and inspiration as we both grow up, I want someone to solve the problem of world hunger, I want someone who will change the world, I want someone to finish what I have started, I want someone who will accomplish what I failed to accomplish, I want someone who will give joy to others, etc. etc.

I feel that it is unfair to project one's expectations to anyone to further one's own interests. The very idea of using somebody to fulfill one's desires and expectations just feels so wrong. It could be a different matter if the child can give his consent prior to being born, but we know that this is impossible -- all the more reason to take procreation seriously.

(2) I want to bring new beings who will experience joy.

If this is your reasoning, it is necessary to explain why we need to have new beings to experience joy. It's not like we need to have X billion enlightened people before life ceases in the universe and then its mission accomplished.

(3) There is inherent value in human existence so extinction must be avoided.

If this is the reason, one has to elaborate why perpetuating the human race is so important. If one cannot justify this fully, it is unfair to subject new beings to suffering for such an unclear justification.

Why must we prevent human extinction?

(4) I'm glad I'm born and I see no harm in creating new beings.

I think this is also selfish in the sense that you are projecting your (potentially limited, and probably subjective) worldview to a non-existent someone who cannot give his consent beforehand.

If you are truly compassionate for the suffering that this non-existent someone will surely experience, why would you gamble that he will eventually reach a similar worldview? What is it to be gained with this gamble? If you say that the joy is worth the suffering, are you not imposing your own value-judgment to someone who may not necessarily agree.

But then again, is it even fair to gamble with someone's life in the first place?

(5) It's just the way things are.

Err...

----

TLDR:

Most of these questions of purpose, I think, as I commented earlier, eventually leads to the realm of the metaphysical/transcendental/unknowable so it would be very difficult to get a coherent answer. However, if one is to rely solely on what can be observed about the human condition, it is difficult to justify why one ought to create new beings.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to not procreate per se. It's more an invitation to take a second look at the 'norm' of procreation and reviewing the motivations behind such norms. Because out of compassion, I think it is a serious issue to haphazardly/selfishly/ignorantly subject additional beings to additional suffering.

I think that if one decides on procreating, one must have a clear picture of why one wants to do so, in light of subjecting new beings through another cycle of suffering. You might say that it is unfair to focus only in the suffering in life, but we can't deny that there is suffering and this suffering that new beings would have to experience must be justified.

If your justification is one enumerated above, I'm not convinced. Its not that you need to convince me or anything, I'm just interested how far you can elaborate on your views.

I'm not from the US but anyways... For future reference when I change my mind.

:: Generalized label - unknown
:: Form of government - benevolent leadership (individual or council)
:: Form of economy - basic income for all (with aid of technological advancement); work-rotation; inheritance not allowed;

:: Abortion - Not OK but with exemptions; be responsible for one's actions
:: Gay marriage - not really needed in general but OK in paper for admin stuff (e.g. taxes, wealth-sharing, etc)

:: Death penalty - OK but to be presented to accused as an alternative to conventional sentences

:: Euthanasia - OK but to be scheduled X months or years in advanced and for certain age groups only; with exemptions

:: Campaign finance - government sponsored events; voters should make the effort
:: Surveillance - OK for judicious use only; mostly AI-operated with limited personal access
:: Health care - OK for basic services and accidents; not OK for 'self-induced' diseases due to smoking, alcohol and drug use, obesity, etc...; controlled drug use especially with antibiotics; gov't sponsored research on basic drugs

:: Immigration - OK but should live in harmony with the community
:: Education - non-mandatory; there should be enabling mechanisms for free access to education until old age

:: Environmental policy - sustainability and minimal damage to environment
:: Gun policy - state/government monopoly
:: Drug policy - undecided; leaning towards medicinal/prescription use only
:: Foreign policy - no meddling with other's affairs but with regular polls for public opinion; help when requested

I'm simply arguing against these arguments because I disagree with them. — Sapientia

It's OK to disagree but I think it is quite counter-productive to just call names. It would have been better if you shared the reason why you disagree. You can say that it's a personal preference and I would be OK with that.

I feel like I should point out the great costs to humanity their proposal would cause — Sapientia

And this is exactly one of the reasons why one ought to question the 'practice' of procreation.

It's 'instrumentalizing' new people for one's/societies' ideologies, ad infinitum. In blunter terms, "it's OK for them to be subjected to suffering because it's for <insert ideology here> sake". Hence the question,

Can you give a non-selfish reason for promoting procreation?

But I guess this is a bit off topic. :)

What do you want from me? Some miraculous cure for suffering? — Sapientia

I think there is already a concensus that suffering is inevitable in human existence. The question with procreation is, why would you want to create another batch of beings-who-will-inevitably-suffer? Right now, I can only think of instrumental reasons, e.g. for the sake of X ideology.

Why should anyone take seriously this absurd reasoning? It's like offering the so-called solution of cutting off your hand to prevent getting a splinter, then having the gall to criticise other solutions for being imperfect. If it's not jumping to this extreme, it's some lame appeal to art. — Sapientia

----

First, I don't think that the complexity of human life and suffering can be captured by the simple splinter analogy you gave. For one, I think that we both agree that one's hand obviously serves a purpose and it isn't worthwhile to cut off one's hand for the mere reason of a possibility of getting a splinter.

On the other hand, there is no unanimous agreement on the (cosmic) purpose served by a new being so you can't help people from arguing that it is not worthwhile to subject additional beings to inevitable suffering for this vague/unknown purpose. The motivation is born out of compassion and I think it is quite hurtful if you just call names without providing adequate alternatives yourself.

Oftentimes, one's reason for procreating serves one's individual ideals or some institutional/instrumental purpose. I don't think this is fair and there's no reason to perpetuate this unfairness.

----

Second, I am not getting any argument/rebuttal from your comment which I can respond to, so I'll just return the question back to you.

Looking the other way, "why should anyone take seriously the absurd reasoning of procreating?".

It was argued in this thread that not procreating prevents additional people from experiencing 'pointless' suffering. This notion may not be so absurd as you might think. There was a comment earlier about celibacy and its relation to suffering and compassion. Arguments were raised and elaborated explaining this idea. It's OK if you're not convinced but if you want to criticize, calling names and giving inflammatory remarks wouldn't help.

If you'd like to discuss, would you mind giving a non-selfish reason why one ought to introduce a new being into this world?

Most of the time, it comes down to intuition/feeling/compassion; conditional on the information given and my personal understanding of the situation on a case to case basis.

Continuing on to the ethical side of this, is the satisfaction of a desire "better" than the absence of that desire in the first place? — darthbarracuda

From what I understand, the central focus of this thread is a comparison (which is better) between (A) the satisfaction of desire and (B) the cessation of desire. The comparison can't be made without contextualizing the apparent advantage of each option. From what I understand, the advantages are as follows: satisfying a desire results in X units of pleasure while ceasing a desire results in Y units of avoided suffering. Hence, the question can viewed in the following light:

Which is better, the X units of pleasure gained or the Y units of suffering avoided?

I think one challenge of trying to answer this question is that it is difficult to limit the discussion to a single individual, and hence, the discussion would have to take into account the pleasure and suffering of other people.

Of course, it is a different matter altogether if there is a convincing narrative explaining why one ought to pursue personal pleasure. If such a narrative is available, then maybe we can say that Y units of suffering justifies X units of pleasure.

Since I haven't yet looked at this possibility yet, I'll just share my thoughts on why I think prevention of Y units of suffering is 'better' in the context of collective pleasure and suffering.

1. Pursuit of one's material desires, more often than not, infringes on other people's desires. (EDIT: Plus it is unsustainable.)

Take for example enjoying a hot cup of coffee. It seems innocent at first glance but looking at it deeply, with the interconnectedness of the modern world, one can argue that this act is contributing to the suffering of other people in some other parts of the world, e.g. cheap coffee beans as a result of cheap labor and cheap oil, cheap oil for transportation and electricity driving wars, corruption, and collapse of countries. Taken as a singular act, drinking a hot cup of coffee may be insignificant but take a whole nation wanting to enjoy this simple pleasure, I must say, leads to a net increase in overall suffering. It would be interesting to consider what would happen if one is to promote the pursuit of Western pleasures to the rest of Asia -- somebody or something must definitely give.

Indirectly, one's pursuit of pleasure results in and justifies the suffering and sacrifices needed in its satisfaction. If left unchecked, it could potentially create a vicious cycle of satisfying growing levels of desires at the expense of growing levels of suffering. So I guess that in this case, the prophylactic case is 'better' than the orexigenic case in the sense that there is less net suffering.

On the other hand, abstaining from satisfying material desires wouldn't lead to such levels of suffering -- actions are chosen to minimize it in the first place.

For other kinds of desires, e.g. reading on Nietzsche, I think there's no problem in pursuing such pleasures if it would not add to the suffering of other people. The difference in philosophy is that the pursuit of pleasure is taken only as secondary to minimizing suffering. (One could also argue that reading on Nietzsche, or any other book at that, is a concious/unconcious act of alleviating suffering; suffering caused by emptiness or boredom.)

2. Cessation of suffering is 'more universal' than the satisfaction of pleasure.

Beyond the basic needs for survival, there is no universally accepted way of increasing overall pleasure. This brings about inconsistencies in holding this view, one of which is the infringement of the desires/pleasures/suffering of others.

On the other hand, cessation of suffering is much more universal, i.e. I think it is much more generally accepted that nobody desires bodily pains, stress-inducing events, emptiness, boredom, etc and hence, there is much less resistance to the idea of minimizing these. I think it is more consistent and makes much more sense to build one's philosophy on top of this idea.

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

TLDR: I think, that in the wider context of human suffering and pleasure, the cessation of suffering is a much more consistent view than the pursuit of pleasures. Hence, the pursuit of pleasures should only be considered secondary to the cessation of suffering, if there is merit in considering this at all.