If you're ready to engage in a conversation, just start already. — Terrapin Station

I just need confirmation that you'll try to do my recommendations.

If this is a nothing more than a subjective evaluation on your part, then all I can say in response is that as someone who has suffered significantly (though not gratuitously) in life, I would chose existence over non-existence. I know many who have suffered gratuitously who would make the same choice. — Theorem

Well, I did say that I agreed that there can never be "objective" deciphering of the axiology of a particular line of ethical reasoning. You can simply lay out the reasoning and appeal to emotions regarding the premise. So yeah, it's "subjective", but no more so than any other ethics. Thus, in the realm of ethical discourse, I lay out the reasoning that follows from the premise and perhaps appeal to emotion regarding the premise which is to not cause harm where there was no harm, and to not make the choice to cause the opportunity for (all other) harm for another person.

Also, it is really fair to make this decision on behalf of those who might/probably would have chosen otherwise? — Theorem

I liken this to "no harm, no foul" reasoning. If no one was ACTUALLY born, no ACTUAL person was deprived of the "goods" of life. If someone is born, an actual person will suffer, however. In other words, it is not bad (or good) if potential person does not actualize to experience good, as there is no actual person to be deprived of that good. On the other hand, that someone did not experience bad is always a good thing, even if there was no actual person to enjoy this.

I understand that you believe this, but you still haven't demonstrated why anyone else should believe it. — Theorem

No ethical theory will have a smoking gun, knockdown, slamdunk argument. Rather, I can try to present the case that creating life for another person is not right, unless there is a guarantee that suffering will not occur for that individual. It would be wrong to create any amount of suffering for another person, for some "X" reason (starting a family, wanting to play the role of parent, watching someone learn about life and overcoming adversity, pressure from family or society, just want to, etc. etc.). While creating suffering where there was no one to suffer is bad, preventing suffering is good. At the same time, there is no ACTUAL person to be deprived of the good of life. This is a win/win.

The assumption of the OP seems to be that no greater good can come from suffering. Basically, suffering is never worth it. You never argued for this. Why should we believe that? — Theorem

I don't believe putting an obstacle course on behalf of another person in the name of "no pain, no gain" is ethical. Creating people for the sake of "growing through suffering (whatever amount)", is still not "right". Creating harm where there was none and then post-facto saying it was for the sake of "that" person is not right.

So have you decided to join the respectful? I'm ready to engage when you're ready to be more charitable poster. You can keep (believing you are) seeking truth, but there is no rule that truth-seeking is proportional to simply being confrontational and disagreeable.

it IS a kind of jackass who deserves your disdain. — DingoJones

This I figured out.

It is pathetic and weak, and I for one am not moved even the tiniest bit because he couches his childish, pointless discontent in bad philosophy. Sophisticated whining is still whining, and thought out contructed weakness is still weakness. — DingoJones

And the meek shall inherit the Earth. So what if he's so-called "weak"? What does this advance? He is making a case- don't procreate. You are calling him weak and to grow up. One was an actual philosophical position, the other was just invective at someone's perceived character. Now, sir, I am not saying it is off the table to call out someone's character. I've done so with for example, Mr. Terrapin Station, who indeed doesn't JUST provide an argument but indeed is trying to irk and annoy as well (or at least I see it that way). Mr. Andrew has not done this. He made a general statement about life itself, and an action he thought should be taken to resolve- said general statement. If you think his ARGUMENT is weak, then explain it to him and have him answer it, but this invective on his character when there was no attack on you, is unnecessary, advances nothing philosophically.

The fact that you or anyone else can intellectualise about it doesnt give you a pass on the weakness and self indulgent petulance that motivates it.
You wanna wallow in your diaper then you are free to do so but I invite you to shut up about it because nobody cares.
You should be ashamed of couching this in terms of philosophy rather than the actual source of you continuously bringing it up which is, to review one last time, that you a whiny and weak person. You can do better, diaper off, big boy pants on. Good luck, you sem like you’ll need it.
Also, for the mods who might want to delete that response on ad hom grounds or somesuch, I offer that it is an equally valid retort as the premiss of the thread, and there is actual merit to the criticisms I stated in the context of this thread. — DingoJones

Oh please... this pull yourself up by the bootstraps is just as cliche too.. You mine as well be doing a parody of the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket. It is the uncreative, easy-to-reach-for retort, and doesn't provide much insight other than the chance you take at low-hanging fruit for the "don't be a cry baby" trope. Next.

Alright, but give me the Von Hartmann argument for why that's likely to happen in the future, even tho it hasn't in the past. — csalisbury

It's hard to find one honestly, but here is an excerpt I found:

The term "unconscious," for yon Hartmann includes the entire primordial foundation of all reality, and he sketches the levels and kinds and types in considerable detail. The problem of evil, as might be expected, becomes the center of his philosophical consideration, for we must solve that in order to know what the forces of the unconscious are like. However, yon Hartmann's goal becomes to shatter the individual's hope of attaining happiness in a life hereafter. His pessimism makes him basically opposed to Christianity. In its progress, the world will return to its proper and original state of rest. Men are doomed but God will also go along with us. The final call to morality is issued by pessimism. It is our duty to remain in life and to continue the human species in order to alleviate the misery of the absolute by our constant sufferings. The ultimate end unveils itself in the return of all existence into nonexistence. Obviously, this is a metaphysics with a grand sweep. Professor Darnoi gives us mostly a bold picture and very little critical evaluation, although such criticisms as he suggests are simply offered and not supported in detail. We are left with a voluntarist and a pessimist of radical proportions, and the book's value lies in its description of a little-known metaphysics. — https://muse.jhu.edu/article/229388/pdf

Aren't you the one complaining about suffering? — Terrapin Station

Yes the suffering of your posts.

I don't believe that I'm the problem here. Maybe you should make some adjustments? — Terrapin Station

Hey, usually people with these problems rarely or never recognize it in themselves. Can't do much with it. Therapy I can recommend to exorcise the demons..other than that.. Disengaging with crazy-making people is the best solution for others.

Life is already suffering enough to deal with people like you. Either figure out how not to be an aggravating, irksome, disagreeable poster, or don't try to engage with me. Thank you.

The point being that it's a dubious empirical claim, Probably due to psychological projection from the author. — Terrapin Station

Yeah I know what you were saying, but you probably don't really understand why I was criticizing your critique.

Your prickish tendancies yet again steer you astray..missing the forest for the trees in your critiques.. Is it just some sort of condition of ahole tourettes? You can't help but spew it out right? Knee-jerk jerkishness, if you will.

It's in the same genre as your post. It's also, in a modified form (the gormless bachelor, rather than the complacent suburbanite) the type of thing Houellebecq fixates on, especially in his early novels. — csalisbury

Ah. Very good.

I see no reason for thinking that since, again, we already reached that introspection in Ecclesiastes which was 900 thousand years ago (give or take.) — csalisbury

Well, that is one person or one author.. and there are thousands of others. But for it to become ubiquitous, for it to be a motivator (or demotivator rather). For it to actually affect people in their daily lives- not just some interesting topic of literature and the arts in general.

It's Trainspotting, or a Houllebecq novel - both of which are filled to the gills with sex, or preoccupation with it. — csalisbury

How is it you are equating that with the vanities I was discussing :D? I'm more interested in how someone perseveres through a workday where they do minutia all day and then go home and do other minutia all day.

It's also ecclesiastes. — csalisbury

Yes that makes sense.

That's what I'm saying. People aren't going to stop procreating because all is vanity. It has been for a long time and the human race is still going strong. — csalisbury

But as we get more "advanced" in our introspection, our technology, our understanding, perhaps it won't? Perhaps truly all will be vanity?

Alright, but I'm having trouble seeing anything essentially new in what you've introduced via Von Hartmann. It seems like it's just a cipher for: there is a tradition that sees history as moving toward some happy end point, but that won't happen. Why? .... Basically the same schopenhauerian analysis, no? — csalisbury

Sort of. But it's not just that it won't happen, but we will become weary to the point of disquietude. The software engineer who takes kids out to see a movie, reads a novel on the weekend, watches some YouTube clips, plays some video games while the kids are away and he has a chance for himself, mows the lawn, trims the hedges, putters in the garden, plants a few more trees by the edge of the yard, meets up with a friend at the bar, plans a vacation to Asia, makes some tweaks to the retirement plan, picks up the groceries for the week, sends some cards and gifts out for birthdays and holidays, gets mad at the neighbors for making too much noise, walking the dog and making some veterinarian appointments, getting the dog food, making sure the utilities, rent/mortgage, car payments are met at the beginning of the month, watches some TV or Netflix, reads a few news articles, and looks endlessly on social media apps....What is this?

Well, yes, but it's a broad question. Isn't the essential characteristic of will that it is in-itself one, but presents itself as multiple? — csalisbury

Ok, I see, this is looking through the Schopenhauer lens. Yes, if looking through the Schopenhauer lens, we are just manifestations of will and thus any attempt at anything really is will- even philosophicalesque ponderings and musings. Calming the will is the salvation here. But going back to my point about von Hartmann and the Great Outdoors. Von Hartmann was indicating that it isn't individual quietude but social quietude. Schopenhauer doesn't take into account as much the social phenomena of existence. Procreation begets others- it is a social union between two. Lonliness is part of the restless will- manifested in humans for example. We form communities- even of a philosophical and religious nature, and even if to teach about negating the need for other people, other things, other thoughts, etc. It's a bit circular, but the social cannot be ignored. We are here due to many social circumstances- a culture, an economy a history with development. So I am not trying to constrain my thoughts only through the lens of Schopenhauer, though there are immense insights that can be applied from him to the evaluation of our psyche and restlessness, and suffering in general.

Appetite can take all forms, and the appetite for 'wisdom' of this sort is itself as vain as anything else. Appetite becomes addiction when the addict returns to the same thing, again and again, trying to derive the same kick. When you say you wouldn't pursue meditation, because you're more 'interested' in the understanding society and it's ends - is that not the 'will' speaking? Sublimated into intellectual rather than carnal urges? In what way are you interested in understanding society and its ends? Please understand I mean no offense when I say it seems you arrived at an understanding a long time ago.

How would you characterize a drive that keeps you chasing after something, and always arriving at the same place? — csalisbury

Ok, then would you say there is a difference between this "understanding" I have that is constantly arriving at the same place, and the usual economic cycle, or the daily worklife, or the hunting and gathering?

Edit: In other words- why is mine sublimated intellectualism and the "others" not sublimated dailylifeness?

I guess it's more the idea that the faster we develop various avenues, the faster we get weary of it.. I may be interpreting him wrong, but I think his idea is of the Hegelian lines that history is moving towards a teleology, but instead of some ideal political/social state, it is one of discontinuance. So, let us pursue of all avenues and tucker our curiosity, hope, and illusions out, and then we will just decide that the best course of action is the quietude of non-being. It will just take a very long time to work itself out. I just think that's an interesting thought. What is your reaction to it besides that it is majorly depressing sounding?
@csalisbury I'm interested in your opinion too.

The only way I could imagine him being correct is if nobody can ever be happy, even for a moment. Since that would require that everybody that has ever said they are happy was lying, I find that too implausible to consider. It seems more likely that the Earth is made of cheese. — andrewk

I guess maybe we have to distinguish what he meant by happiness though, huh?

For what it feels like, you'd have to ask the people that are having children now. My youngest is aged nineteen, so I can't remember. For where it springs from, I'd say evolution. Species that don't have an inbuilt urge to procreate will be replaced by those that do.

But regardless of whether we can answer either of those questions, we can be sure that the urge is there as a powerful driver in many humans, enough so that it can never be practical to expect all humans to voluntarily resist it. — andrewk

I'd like to bring your attention to my response to csalisbury above: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/259599

But, back to your OP. Since actually ending procreation is impractical, and since you seem to be putting less emphasis on realizing that goal, and more on mission and community - what about joining a meditation community? To work on stilling your own desire, helping and being helped by others? — csalisbury

Well, that is a very Schopenhaurean suggestion, but probably not a life I could live in a dedicated way to. I'm more interested in the "great outdoors" of society and understanding its ends. Micro-decisions like procreation have such profound implications. What is the point of bringing another person into the world? What are we here for in the first place? I wish this was more of a focus rather than, the darned TPS reports.. .This economic system keeping things going, but we don't know what it's going for. Look at modern life. We can have illusions it can be different, but von Hartmann had some interesting insights in this regard- the illusion is that happiness can be had in the present, the hereafter, or a future utopian state. So where does that leave us if indeed he is correct? Pretend, for a minute that he is correct. Where does that leave us?

I never disagree with someone just to disagree or because I don't want to agree. I'd be happy to agree, but you'd need to say something I agree with. :razz:

I don't believe there's merit to just letting slide things we think are misconceived or in error when we're doing philosophy (or science etc.) Aren't we aiming to "get right what the world is like"? Otherwise what are we doing? — Terrapin Station

Again, I have no problem with disagreement. It's the way you do it. Have you ever dealt with someone who has a personality disorder? There's a way to do things that don't bring ire. You are irkesome sir. I don't know what else to say. I don't like debating irksome people and I have debated many people who I disagree with and have been frustrated with..but I draw the line at irking.

The judgment, consideration, ethical-ness, caringness, altlurusim, unselfishness, etc. needed for such a choice is exactly what is mostly missing in a bad society. The societal worlds that most need large-scale Antinatalism are the very ones that wouldn't have it. — Michael Ossipoff

This is true. It takes a tremendous amount of altruism and caringness for people to not procreate for the considerations of not making a new person suffer. It also takes a certain understanding of the implications of being born. I think it is not just lack of altruism (which is part of it), but lack of deep analysis.

It can't do that because nobody has that understanding. We all know that the urge to procreate is far too strong for a movement against it to ever be successful in persuading everybody to have no offspring. — andrewk

But what does this urge "feel" like? What does it spring from?

So no matter how fervently an antinatalist might believe, and evangelise their message, that procreation is immoral, they will never succeed. New people will continue to be born as long as the world remains habitable by large numbers of humans, and those new people will encounter suffering (as well as joy and a whole host of other experiences). — andrewk

I agree that thinking of life holistically, and questioning whether to put people in it is not very popular. Why do you think that is?

On a more sympathetic note, you might find the section on the "otukungurua" in Gravity's Rainbow interesting — csalisbury

Interesting.. I read a little of some passages from Gravity's Rainbow in a Google search.. Interesting. What I saw, the Herero were choosing not to procreate and die off rather than live in their conditions. But, I'm probably missing a lot of the context being that I just read a small part.

True, it can be hard to change one's personality, online or otherwise. I don't know. The art of disagreeing without being disagreeable or contentious can be hard. Here is something I found in a quick search (mind you I have no idea about this website..just a simple search about disagree vs. disagreeable). Perhaps this can give you some ideas.

For some, every statement seems to be an invitation to do battle under the guise of playing “Devil’s advocate”, and that grows tiresome after it becomes habitual instead of thoughtful. (Someone recently wrote a great post about the downside of Devil’s Advocacy, but I’ll be darned if I can find it. Drop a link in the comments if you have it). It’s as if dissention is a badge of honor, that agreeing with someone means you’re nothing more than a lemming, and that being argumentative is the only way to prove that you have something valuable to say because you aren’t following the herd.

Walking away from disagreement that’s fruitless doesn’t mean we don’t respect the importance and the reality of diversity of thought. It’s a choice to entertain it in a less combative environment.

My good friend and intellectual sparring partner Matt Ridings is adept at disagreeing with things without being disagreeable, and he’s taught me plenty. So is my co-author Tamsen McMahon (and I deeply admire the temperance with which she greets the world at large). Julien Smith is brilliant at challenging my assumptions and perceptions while never making me feel attacked, inferior, or condescended. All of those make for great discussion, for self reflection, for great intellectual food for thought.

There is a difference, my friends, between disagreeing, and being disagreeable. Have you felt this? Do you see the difference? And how can we all be more conscious of which we’re doing? — https://ambernaslund.com/disagreement-vs-disagreeable/

Yeah, bringing everyone together in our mutual antagonism of life itself. Please tell me you see the comic irony in that.

Come on, guys! Let's all hold hands and work towards our own extinction! There's no "I" in team! — S

Of course I do.. I think it's poetic like a MAD comic :D

This was meant to be about bringing people together in the understanding that we can solve the problem of suffering. It becomes communal and therapeutic.

Learn a valuable lesson? But what if they just can't? What if they're immune to good sense? Keep trying to get through until we're all sick to death, and then we all die of exasperation, and the anti-natalist gets what he wants?

Or maybe just ignore them, or poke fun at them. Basically, do whatever we like and move on. Same time again next week? I wonder what he'll call the next discussion on essentially the same topic yet again. This one is going to be hard to beat. How about, "Groundhog Day"? — S

Each variation provides a different perspective though. No one stays on queue (cue) though.

Oh

?

Again, I'm not engaging further, unless you agree to not be disagreeable, and engage with good intentions rather than simply contention mode. Otherwise, again, no use, no matter how compelling you make your posts. I am only doing this with you, because I know the history I have when engaging you. It's like engaging with someone with a personality disorder and you keep getting aggravating replies to everything.. You keep thinking it's you when it is really th e person who has the personality disorder making you crazy. So agree first to not be such a disagreeable poster..while still disagreeing and maybe we can engage further.

It's just up to you. If you want to ignore the issue, cool. I pointed it out to you, but you can just ignore it if you like. I don't know why you'd not want to try to make the argument unassailable, but okay. — Terrapin Station

It isn't just about defending my argument. there has to be something that actually comes out of it. If you want to help me make my argument stronger, and walk with me through a dialectic process of discovery and see where it takes me, that's one thing. Some posters are good at that. They disagree with my position, but are not disagreeable. You are the opposite. You are simply burn, burn, burn. Notice, I'm not saying you make any good points. Nor that you "got me". Rather, the tone, tenor, and general attitude you present in your posts is simply that of destruction and aggravation, so there is no reason to cause more suffering and bother with that for me. Again, it's not aggravating because you make any good points, nor is it the case I'm trying to "dodge" some really great insights that you have.

The idea is that you'd have to do that in order for the stance/argument to hold water and be consistent, tenable, coherent, etc. It's up to you whether you want to bother with that work or not, but the consistency problems remain if you don't do the work. It's to your benefit. I'm just pointing out problems/objections. — Terrapin Station

Excuse my language, but give me a fuckn break. I've done the work thousands of times over on this forum and the previous one. Don't lecture me on not doing the work because I am now seeing a pattern in how you post and see it isn't productive discussions that come forth. YOU must do the work of being a more charitable poster as well buddy.

So you'd have to define suffering and explain which negative/undesired states of body/mind count as suffering and which do not. — Terrapin Station

First, I must decide whether this argument is worth it..Whether both of us really get something out of this. Sometimes, I am not sure if I am dealing with someone where philosophical inquiry will flourish or if it is just contention for contention.

Wouldn't you say that booing is a type of suffering? — Terrapin Station

Nope.

Good and bad are evaluations that people make that are akin to yaying or booing. So it's simply a matter of someone booing the absence of potential persons' good. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but I'll just say, no harm, no foul. Where my decision actually prevented harm, yours didn't affect anything. Granted you can say placing weight on harm (negative utilitarianism) is arbitrary and I would then go back to the premise I've always told you. Ethics at the end of the day goes back to people's emotional weight regarding certain topics. I can try to convince of putting weight on certain things because of certain considerations.. but at the end of the day it is up to the listener to decide. I can't go any further to prove the axiology. But I've never said otherwise. To me, harm is of the utmost consideration when procreation is concerned as, I believe imposing harm is not a good thing to do on behalf of someone.

Edit: You can try to tell me otherwise, that it is good that a person to be born to experience harm..but I believe that to be wholly off base. To make someone so that they are harmed, so they "grow" is not right. To put adversity purposefully because you feel that it is good for others to experience is not right. Parents are not messianic figures bringing "freedom-through-suffering" into the world, or whatever other ridiculousness.

The problem with that, of course, is that nothing is good or bad outside of an individual evaluating something that way, and really, there is nothing that couldn't be evaluated as either good or bad by some individual. That includes evaluating "the absence of potential people's good" as bad. They can't be incorrect about that, because no good/bad evaluations are incorrect (or correct). — Terrapin Station

So, why would the absence of a potential person's good be bad, if there is no actual person who is deprived? Is it bad you are not having a child that can experience good right now? If you say yes, I would like to know who is actually suffering from this.

Sure, universal choice of contraception or celibacy would be fine, but (as has already been pointed out here), if that were achievable, then more modest proposals, such as a really good societal-world, would be achievable too.
.
I like good sci-fi fantasy, and I’d say that a genuinely good societal-world is a better one than extinction.
.
That’s why I like calendar-reform proposals. ..not because of any claim that they’re achievable, but merely because, as I said, I like good sci-fi fantasy. …and, if there were a “Utopian-Epoch”, a grand triumphal arrival of a completely new and better societal era, then people might want a complete departure from the old ways of doing things. …a complete break with the bad-old-days. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no allusions we are all going to hold hands and agree in unison on this topic. The outcome is not the point, it is the coming to the realization of what is going on. That may never happen for many people, but it is always good to have a dialog. The more pondering of life itself, the better. The more we ignore and take certain conditions as simply the case, the less we are using our capacity to self-reflect and understand the situation as a whole. It is to ignore the whole for the part. We must get back to the whole.