That the wrongness in arguments from anti-natalists does not speak to the fact suffer will an does persist independently of ones objections to the existence of it, and I don't definitions as a means of analysis — Cobra

Sorry I have no clue what this word salad means XD

You give a googled 'definition' as if it explains anything, but all it does is stifle analysis. — Cobra

It explains whether or not you’re misusing the word. You can’t just define whatever word however you like and expect people to agree with you. If I say “Hitler did nothing wrong” and you disagree, it’s ridiculous for me to amend it by saying “Actually, by hitler I mean Timmy, and by ‘nothing wrong’ I mean ‘his homework’ therefore you must agree with me that hitler did nothing wrong”. That’s just being maliciously misleading

When you make up definitions for words that already have a use you end up with ridiculous scenarios like the above.

I argue in my previous post as an anti-natalist, I believe other antinatalists argue this position weakly when they introduce fallacious ought arguments to the position — Cobra

You are seriously saying that antinatalism is not about saying that having kids is wrong. Wow. Ok guess I’m a vegan then. I’ll go have my beef jerky now....

Thus, it's not the action of "giving birth" that is wrong — Cobra

I understand the act of "not having a child," to be altruistic. — Cobra

Altruistic but not necessary? Then you’re not an antinatalist. Just someone who thinks it’s better not to have kids.

Rather, I recognize that there is a substantive difference in how it is applied to someone not yet born and explain that this is because it a case of absolutely not creating unnecessary harm, vs. people who already exist and recognize that there are compromises in living in groups and socially. — schopenhauer1

I don’t see the distinction. In the case of children, having them is sometimes fine because there are people who already exist (the ones in the room) and compromises are inevitable. Not having the child is harming the people in the room. And since you:

I don't apply it in extremes — schopenhauer1

Then you can’t unilaterally say that violating the child’s dignity to not harm the people in the room is wrong.

Once born, you indeed would be overlooking someone's dignity if you ignored egregious harm, and didn't make the compromise to recognize this. — schopenhauer1

Sure no one is disagreeing there.

I certainly would be not recognizing someone's dignity by not waking up the life guard. — schopenhauer1

I do not believe breaking the life guard's arm in the attempt to get them to do their job was violating the lifeguard's dignity. — schopenhauer1

Typo? How in the world is waking up the life guard violating his dignity (I assume violate and “not recognize” are synonymous here) and breaking his arm is not violating his dignity?

It's not a matter of special pleading but a different case. — schopenhauer1

You say so but I seriously can’t see how.

In one case, there is someone that will be harmed unless you violate another person's dignity. Wait, no that’s both cases.

This is simply a variation of the "there is not enough suffering" variant of objection. — schopenhauer1

It’s more so: There is suffering no matter what you choose and it’s not clear that having the child is always the less suffering option.

I can also say the social relations lead to suffering, as much as we are drawn to them — schopenhauer1

What Isaac said.

to then say that this justifies making other people experience the harms of existence to have this would be violating the dignity — schopenhauer1

Which you can’t say is unilaterally wrong, assuming that having them is the less harmful option. Because you think it’s fine to wake up the lifeguard / ex-lifeguard.

In the aggregate calculation, there are always mitigating circumstances if you only care about outcomes. Most likely, no parent was thinking about the real possibility of a deadly pandemic, for example. That should at least give some pause. — schopenhauer1

Again, this is idle speculation. You cannot use “But maybe some terrible event will happen” as real evidence that not having the kid is less harmful. Statistically speaking, I would say it’s pretty clear that having children is overall, a positive influence. And this is taking into account catastrophic events.

So that involves not using them, even if it is trying to ameliorate unnecessary harm — schopenhauer1

Again, this “dignity argument” seems extreme. It means you shouldn’t wake up the life guard who is sleeping on the job even if someone you can’t save is drowning. Because that involves using them. And this is unlike the “stop the gunner” example because the lifeguard did nothing wrong. You could argue that “sleeping on the job” is something wrong, but then I’d just modify the example to being about your ex-lifeguard friend sleeping as a relative of his is drowning, you can’t wake him up. Seems extreme to me to mark any form of “using people” as wrong. A simpler example is taxes. But you sort of handwaved that because it’s “political”

someone with a better model, that can see the "bigger picture" can simply override your more primitive model of "just seeing what's in front of your face". The better model might actually predict that it was better overall not to procreate that child — schopenhauer1

Unlikely. Considering that most people are a positive influence. If they weren’t, then as Isaac said, we’d all be happier as hermits. But we’re clearly not. If humans were on average such that we are better off alone and isolated, since we are usually a negative influence to others I’d agree with you, but it isn’t the case. Heck, it that were the case AN would probably be the default position for our species and you’d need to convince people that having children is acceptable.

Also until this “better model” is found this is just idle speculation.

By procreating someone, you are enabling the conditions of harm — schopenhauer1

Rather, now you are making, from complete scratch, another situation of enabling harm, so that you can ameliorate the situation. I just don't see that as right to do, even if it means that you think it will have some beneficial outcome. Enabling harm by creating harmfulness "anew" in a new person, so that you can "fix" something for people that were already born is just not good enough to say, "Oh, this justifies creating the harm for that person". — schopenhauer1

Then I’d reply to you with the same reply I gave cobra. The mere fact that you are forcing someone into a game is not a problem. The problem would be if they will suffer AND that there is a less harmful alternative. Otherwise, if the former is the principle you go by (it’s wrong to put people in games, period), then you shouldn’t have a child even knowing that they will have a perfect life. Because even though they will have a perfect life they’re still playing the game, they just happen to really like it. But I find that conclusion absurd. So that leads me to believe that making someone play a game is not in itself a problem. The problem is if there is a chance they get harmed AND there is a less harmful alternative.

It’s called rationalizing an irrational fear. — Olivier5

I'd say it's healthy to fear screwing over someone for life. Especially if you have a history of dealing with severely disabled people/family members. Or you come from a 3rd world country and have seen how bad things can get. Or you have depressed family members/friends. Etc

While I may not be AN anymore, the number of people I would think have no business having children is probably greater than most. I definitely still think people in general take the decision too lightly.

You need to make a case as to why things which are are immoral when not political become OK when political. — Isaac

I would be fine with saying that we should employ a different set of rules for aggregate ethical dilemmas than we do for individual ethical dilemmas. I wouldn't agree with it but at least it doesn't sound ridiculous to me, sounds like a somewhat reasonable starting point. The problem is the line between "aggregate" decisions and individual decisions is very blurry.

If I can somehow predict the future, and I find every person your future child (were you to have one) would help then I bring them all together in a room, why do you treat harm done to them as "aggregate" but harm done to the child as concrete and immediate. By not having a child, you are in fact harming everyone in that room. There is no "abstract cause" here. It's not like saying "For the country", where you are asked to harm someone for the sake of a fiction. There are real people in that room.

You could argue that we should not impose harm on someone for the sake of saving someone else who you are not responsible for, and I would think that either side there is an extreme. By this principle, you cannot wake up the lifeguard who is sleeping on the job, even while a man is drowning and you can't save him yourself. On the opposite end we have things like: Throwing the innocent fat man in front of the train to save 2 people (or even 1) who were being idiots and playing on the track being completely fine.

I think there is a point at which you can use people to prevent harm on other people, which sets a high, but not unreachable, standard for when it is ok to have children. I'd say we do so all the time. Taxing the rich for example, even though they don't benefit from it much if at all in comparison to what they're paying.

I believe they’ve said as much, but I’m not sure I buy it. If it were just a personal choice to not have children, why all threads? Are they not there to try to convince others that their personal choice is somehow morally superior? — Pinprick

I would say it's more like "They're wondering how you can not see the conclusion that they see because they assume you share the same premises"

But it's more than a personal choice. Most people who don't have kids don't think it's wrong not to have kids.

I certainly would agree they're different. But does that difference lead to one being superior to the other in establishing which theories are wrong? — Isaac

Well, saying something is wrong because it is inconsistent gets you in a lot less trouble than saying that something is wrong because it "feels wrong". So it's superior in that sense. And I don't think much trumps saying that things are wrong because they are inconsistent in terms of not getting you into trouble. So I would guess that's why pfhorrest uses it as the arbiter.

This turns an objective debate into a matter of convincing you (i.e. making you understand and convert), rather than focusing on deconstructing impersonal arguments and refuting them in good faith. — Cobra

Ok. Didn't expect this reaction. I was only trying to be nice when I said "I don't find this convincing", I wasn't trying to make it about convincing or not convincing me. I should not have sugar coated. Next time I'll just say what I mean directly: "This makes no sense". Noted.

And something failing to abide by your logic does not mean it is nonsensical nor devoid of sense — Cobra

There is no "my logic" and "your logic". There is logic, and our imperfect attempts at using it. I am saying that while you think you have a logical argument, it is not in fact logical at all. As you cannot point to the logical operation used between your premise and conclusion.

"I'm not convinced," while offering no warranted refute or counterargument — which by default personalizes the discussion and communication style, which is in fact, rude and entitled. — Cobra

No. I admittedly misunderstood you there. I thought you were making the claim that "life is suffering" or similar. When all you meant was that life is a "dangerous game" so to speak. If you don't do certain things, you will get harmed. Agreed there. But I don't see how that would lead to "So you shouldn't have kids"

And how in the world is "I'm not convinced" rude? Cmon.

And even more nonsensical is deducing that "surveys," inform public health and public safety, and therefore, "happy people = disproves the objective basis of suffering," — Cobra

Admittedly, that was a misunderstanding. I didn't think you were saying "there is an objective basis for suffering enabled by us being conscious". We are agreed there. I thought you were saying that "life is terrible" or something along those lines.

I ignore your lazy critique, because it is not a critique, and I already covered it three times in my previous — Cobra

Could you point me to where you answered how "There is an objective basis for suffering enabled by birth" leads to "So you shouldn't have children"? I must have missed it. Should be no trouble to quote it if you have done it 3 times...

No what happened is, you ignored the problem that your premise does not lead to your conclusion. "Your premises do not lead to your conclusion" is not something you can just handwave away.

Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, or make "ought" arguments. — Cobra

Huh? Here I thought Antinatalism is the position that says that having kids is wrong. Antinatalism doesn't give "ought" statements? Ridiculous. You just don't know what antinatalism means then.

First definition when looking up the word on google:

"Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally bad)." -Wikipedia

Do I have to point out where the ought statement is?

Also what about the hypothetical? Do you even actually think having kids is wrong?

Well, although one will also be creating pleasures by procreating, those pleasures - most of them, anyway - do not seem deserved. — Bartricks

You didn't distinguish what a "deserved", "non-deserved" and "undeserved" pleasure is. Maybe an example from each?

Does the fact that acts of human procreation can reasonably be expected to create lots of undeserved suffering and non-deserved pleasure imply that they are overall morally bad? — Bartricks

If you're only considering the child and parent, yes. But it becomes less clear when you generalize to the consequences of both acts. If you are a good parent, your child can be expected to alleviate a lot of undeserved suffering throughout their lifetime as well as create a lot of pleasure. By not having them, you are thus still causing undeserved suffering, to the people they would have helped.

into something in un/intentional bad faith — Cobra

You're the one that started with the ad-hom, and general rudeness, and refuses to explain their position. Telling me to go back and read nonsense doesn't make nonsense sensical. Nor is it an explanation of your position.

You still have not responded to the critique:

I am making an argument that giving birth enables this (by the way of consciousness); which is a FACT. The non-conscious abiotic 'in life' things cannot be sufferers or suffer. — Cobra

There is nothing here that leads to "Therefore you should not have children". And I agree that giving birth enables harm. 3 times now I say this. 3 times you can't respond.

Or the hypothetical:

If we knew the next child to be born was going to have a perfect suffering-free life, is it wrong to have them? If so why? — khaled

you wouldn't keep bringing up shit I never said or implied. — Cobra

I am literally quoting you..... And not out of context either.

I'm down to have an actual discussion if you were to actually make it clear what your argument is instead of "go back and read". If I'm wrong about it, or misunderstanding you, "Stop misunderstanding me you brain damaged idiot" doesn't help. And you blame me for not wanting a discussion, which is hilarious.

And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer.

Literally brain damaged. But loGiCk. — Cobra

It makes just as much sense as "You using X product might have inadvertently killed thousands of people". Which is what it was in response to.

Your misspelling of "logic" is telling....

Continue to strawman and contradict in your own posts about lack of sense-making. — Cobra

I'm not trying to strawman. But you refuse to explain your position. You just keep saying "go back and read". I do. It doesn't make sense. What IS your argument for AN stated as simply as possible? How do you go from brute facts about life (that people have to play a certain game to not suffer) to "Having children is wrong"? It doesn't compute.

If we knew the next child to be born was going to have a perfect suffering-free life, is it wrong to have them? If so why?

It applies to all of them. — Cobra

First sensical thing you said. Posts do not, in fact, have brains. Well, second to be fair, after "life is full of strife"

Your post is brain damaged. — Cobra

My post doesn't have a brain :wink:

Reread what I said when you're not so focused on being obtuse. — Cobra

Done. Still doesn't make sense.

Good to know you're incapable of answering simple questions about your argument though:

If there is a logical operation that leads from "Life is full of strife" to "You shouldn't have kids" what is it? — khaled

As you say, MOST of what we do in harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves. However, here is a chance to no cause any unnecessary harm to anyone. — schopenhauer1

False. There is no such chance. That is the point. There is a chance to not cause unnecessary suffering to the child. But in doing so you harm those he/she would have helped. Either choice causes harm.

That family member already exists.. the compromise is inevitable — schopenhauer1

The people that my child would help already exist. The compromise is inevitable. See?

A more clear cut case of using someone, is if you sold your family member's car in order to give the money to charity. That wouldn't be right, even if that charity was going to benefit more from the money than your family would from their car. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't be so sure. Depends on the charity. And how rich the family member is.

Let me modify the example: If you had a billionaire relative and you were driving around in one of his cars (with his permission) then a child runs from around the corner and you are about to run him over, so you swerve and crash the car (that is not yours) to save the child. Is that wrong? The only difference between this scenario and donating to charity scenario is that here the cause is immediate. If you do not swerve, you WILL kill someone. Which is why I say it depends on the charity. If you knew that you could save a life by selling that car, I wouldn't be so sure it's wrong to do so. Similar to how you wouldn't mind crashing the car to save a life, even though it isn't yours.

But I did mention that in procreation, here is a case where it is absolutely unnecessary — schopenhauer1

This is precisely the premise that I am challenging. No, it is not absolutely unnecessary. Even framed in terms of harms done, both choices (have a child and don't have a child) will do harm. So one can say they are having a child to avoid an even worse harm on others. You would say that that is "harming the child for a higher purpose than them". Then I would say that NOT having a child is similarly "Harming the people the child would have helped for a higher purpose than them"

I still think this is actually inadvertently perpetuating the harm, if you are going to use the aggregate approach.. You are just kicking the can down the road for yet more generations. — schopenhauer1

As I said, I don't see this as a problem. Similar to how you don't see extinction as a problem, if at every step of the way we are making a morally acceptable choice, I don't see continued life as a problem if at every step we are making a morally acceptable choice.

Not only is it hard to quantify the amount of harm/good a person actually contributes to the world, it might be a case of projection of what one wants to see than what might actually be the case. — schopenhauer1

Hard to quantify =/= pointless to quantify. In the same way that it is hard to quantify the amount of suffering your child will experience.

You using X product might have inadvertently killed thousands of Y across the world. — schopenhauer1

And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer. Same argument applies to both sides. It is difficult to calculate the consequences of both choices. And not having a child is NOT simply the harmless option. That is the point.

If the system in question is just the parent and the child, then yes having a child is definitely the more harmful option.

But when you consider wider consequences it is no longer that clear cut.

If I remember correctly, a similar experiment found that the effect is pronounced in teenagers. They seem to always sleep one hour later each day. Can't for the life of me find the experiment though.

since you have completely personalized the debate to one of convince/unconvince you — Cobra

It doesn't convince me because it doesn't make sense.

it is actively demonstrated by anthropological, biological, sociobiological, ecological, medical and cognitive sciences (and beyond) - that certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal to biological (human) moral agents in terms of well-being. — Cobra

Agreed. Certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal for our well being. And without certain things we will suffer. Let me shorten this quote to: "Life is full of strife".

There is no logical operation that then leads from this to "So you shouldn't have kids". That is my point. If there is a logical operation that leads from "Life is full of strife" to "You shouldn't have kids" what is it?

you are refusing the process of analysis to simply reaffirm your own beliefs and assertions over mine, — Cobra

It's not just some baseless belief. It is a fact that happiness surveys come back with most people being happy overall. I'm sure you can pull up a study on your own easily to affirm this. And not all happiness surveys are done in North Korea.

This does not require composing a list of 'particular sufferings' simply because you personally cannot apprehend what is being said; nor is your lack of apprehension a warranted refute or doubt. — Cobra

The point of the example was to demonstrate the absurdity that, even if you knew your next child will have a perfect life free of suffering, it would still be wrong to have them. Because life is still full of strife, even for that child. And if the only requirement for "You shouldn't have kids" to be true is for "Life is full of strife" to be true, then having that kid is wrong. But this is absurd. Which maybe hints that "You shouldn't have kids" does not follow even if "Life is full of strife" is true.

I’m not convinced because it’s a fallacy. “Bringing someone into the world is wrong because life is full of strife” is an is-ought fallacy. It’s like saying “Eating oranges is wrong because oranges grow on trees”. What the objective state of the world is cannot be used to argue for any ethical position.

Additionally, you’re not even referring to any suffering in particular when you say this. It can be known that your next child will not suffer at all, and it would STILL be wrong to have them, because life is full still of strife.

I didn’t rebut anything because I expected that you’d have more premises than “life is full of strife”. If that’s your only premise then there is your rebuttal.

If you are a human agent, you belong to human ecology and are constrained by human flaws i.e., biology, physiology, psychology, cognition, etc. These are facts not determined or dependent on 'personal human happiness.' or 'personal feelings' .. so I don't get why you keep bringing it up. It is a fact that we are constantly driven (biologically), ecologically (morally), and so forth to optimize because if we do not languish occurs. — Cobra

Sure.

How this relates to antinatalism involves you reading my post, contextualizing and understanding what is being said. — Cobra

Which is what I tried to do but apparently incorrectly. It would help if instead of restating what I already understand that you state how it relates to AN.

Like the mathematics example, reality does not care what a bunch of non-mathematician optimists say 4+4 is or how they feel about it, because there exists an objective basis — Cobra

Sure. And I don’t see how the objective basis can be used to argue for AN. It is a fact that we have to continually strive not to suffer. So what?

But this is off topic. — Cobra

Really? It seemed to me that you wanted to use the fact that in life you are constantly striving merely to survive, as an argument for AN. I’ve heard it before and was not convinced by it. Being in a state of constant striving is not clearly a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.

The fact of the matter is "happiness" does not inform public health or public safety; cancer patients can be happy but this is irrelevant to the fact that a cancer patient will inevitably languish (and suffer), without medical treatment. — Cobra

Fair enough. Point still stands though. Being in a state of constant striving is not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.

Personal (happiness/personal desires), do not inform public health and public safety. — Cobra

I wasn’t referring to my personal life, but to the fact that surveys of happiness often (I think always) have the population being overall happy or at least satisfied.

Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, etc flaws (and other elements). — Cobra

Seems unconvincing or at least over dramatic considering most people are happy. Despite the fact that people have to constantly do things to live, I don’t think that in itself can be used as an argument when most people are fine doing these things, heck, prefer to do these things. This sounds like a pessimistic argument for AN which I never bought.

Before I rebut this, do you have any comments on this part:

Also, I would say that in the realm of ethics, using someone for some greater good, is a violation. Giving to charity is a good thing. Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not, cause you are using someone, even if it is supposed to help a greater amount of people, or some abstract cause. So rather, I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. That person is the one whose whole life will be affected by this decision. All instances of harm will befall that person. An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. Rather, we should help those people in need without using someone else, similar to taking someone's money to give to charity situation. — schopenhauer1

Hard to sell. No taxes, no laws, no jails, etc. Also can be taken to many unpleasant extremes. Say I want to donate to charity. But there is someone in my family who is a strict capitalist and very much against the idea of donating to charity. If I donate, I would certainly be harming that person for a purpose outside themselves. Heck, I would say MOST of what we do is harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves.

What I definitely agree with however is that appealing to goals like “For mankind” or “For the country” as justification to hurt someone is utter BS. If you want to harm someone, the alternative has to also be harmful to specific people, not to some abstract cause for the act to begin to be considered acceptable. That is exactly the case with birth however.

a) We can't know if they will be equipped (that's more the approach of khaled, but I agree.. there is that 10% or whatever figure it is). Also, it is hard to really know how to judge this. At some points someone might be okay, others not, and then there is total evaluation which is separate than the individual experiences. Which version is it? I don't think we can say, and there are certainly times one someone would ideally rather not have had those experiences. — schopenhauer1

Sure. And this makes it risky to do so. Problem is, there is also a very high chance someone will get harmed by NOT having children. Which makes having children acceptable in cases where the latter trumps the former. Aka, when someone can be a good parent.

b) Even if I equipped someone, putting them in the game in the first place is wrong. — schopenhauer1

What if the current players need them? Then not putting them in is harming the current players. I would say that there comes a point where it becomes acceptable to put them in in that case. Because in this case it is not some abstract cause that they’re being used for, it is the same cause: To ensure I do as little harm as possible.

makes us become slaves to the best outcome, no matter what. — schopenhauer1

You only have to pick the best outcome if you are the one causing the harm directly.

An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. — schopenhauer1

The line is blurry. And the group isn’t any more “abstract” as the suffering of the child themselves. I’m not sure that the system under consideration should not include the aggregate. If it doesn’t, we can’t get taxes, or laws, or a whole lot of other stuff. When should we favor the individual over the aggregate? I’ll sleep on it.

Point is that I can flip this to say “This group of people will suffer if you abstain. By abstaining you are harming this group of people for a cause that goes beyond each of them individually. That cause being: not harming the child”

It’s not clear to me why the child should take precedence.

by putting more people into harm's way (birthing them) you are just perpetuating the situation in the long term which is not fixing it. — schopenhauer1

Which is fine. As long as at every step of the way we know that having a child is the less risky option. In the same way that extinction was fine since at every step we were making the right decision.

If they aren't knowledge, then they are either wrong or just scribbles on a screen. — Harry Hindu

Well they are scribbles on a screen regardless but where did beliefs go? Knowledge or nonsense? Doesn't sound right.

Yes. Not one I’ve given much thought to either way though.

sure. Which was the counter argument that got me.

The argument would be that no odds are good enough when a harmless alternative is available. Which is an argument I agree with. For example: Even if 90% of people like a game, I still can’t force you to play it. Because not forcing you to play it is harmless. Whereas forcing you to play it has a 10% chance to be harmful.

I don't think it has a refutation. But it does not need a fefutation for humans to continue operating with reason. — god must be atheist

As long as we have assumptions that we say are given; in other words, there are things we accept as true, whether they are or not; we have a mode to operate, and to apply our reason. — god must be atheist

:up:

In particular, how does the emotional stand, and to what extent is this simply an expression of the material, or something more? — Jack Cummins

Why can it not just coincide with the material? When you have brainstate X you also simultaneously experience fear or joy or what have you.

But the so-called material world that we actually inhabit is shot-through with meaning, information, none of which is itself material. — Pantagruel

I would say that those are in our eyes not in the world. Practically no difference though.

The symbolic historical significance of material structures carries meaning that can evoke real actions in people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the materiality of those structures. — Pantagruel

Who claimed otherwise?

What constitutes “material”? What not just “the world”? I’ve always found “material” in “material world” to be at best obsolete and at worst misleading. What would a non-material world look like?

Because it is destroying a major part of why life is worth living, of the beauty of life, for strictly no reason. — Olivier5

No it isn't. Nothing is destroyed here. The child never experienced the beauty of life for taking it away to be in any way destructive, heck nothing is being taken away here at all. To destroy something, it had to have existed first. Saying this is "destruction" is exactly like saying that having a child is an "imposition".

The fact is that nobody was technically 'put' in such position, because to exist is to be in that position, and no one even existed before they were in that position. — Olivier5

Ok. Even though I don't even argue for the side anymore this is still BS to use as any meaningful critique.

Is genetically engineering someone to be blind wrong? If not why? Nobody is technically harmed by the act. So why is it wrong?

Which is why it is followed by a (supposedly)

But hey, ANY justification is better than "Oh we'll do it and if they don't like it they can just kill themselves so it's fine"

Life is often better than the alternative. That's my point and it is indeed a very simple point. — Olivier5

Key word: Often. What justifies taking the risk? When the alternative is harmless? (supposedly)

The comparison is not correct because the someone in question does not exist before conception. Parents give life to their children, their force no one, they give life to one. And if that one rejects the gift, then that's his or her choice. — Olivier5

The problem is you CAN'T reject the gift. Phrasing suicide as "rejecting the gift of life" is disgusting. It's a bit more than that. Rejecting implies that before the imposition was made you were able to will that it is not made. That is not what happens. The imposition is made. And there is no obvious, or easy quit button. If "quitting life" was as easy as pressing escape and hitting "quit" I would never have been AN. The problem is it is a grueling task to quit.

But to think that to give life is always inherently morally wrong, in any time and at any place, to me that's courting the kind of (admittedly flippant) response I gave you: if you hate life so much, you're welcome to quit. Will make room for the rest of us. — Olivier5

One can love life and still be AN. I know. Shocking!

But where the probabilities of how it affects the aggregate is practically immeasurable (the butterfly affect), the actualities of birth negatively affecting the individual that will be born is 100%. — schopenhauer1

And I don't really find "You couldn't know that having children will result in them helping people more than average" convincing but it was my first line of defense. Most people have a positive impact overall I'd say. — khaled

And the reason I don't buy it is what Isaac basically just said.

In a less absolute argument against it but still relevant is that it relies on probabilities and contingencies one can never know for certain regarding how it affects the aggregate (however, we do know how that birth affects the person being born, almost certainly negatively to some degree). — schopenhauer1

The point is that we certainly do know how not having a child will affect others. Almost certainly negatively to some degree.

The point is not that having children is no longer harmful, or that there is some "greater cause" that justifies it, it is that the alternative, not having children is ALSO harmful. Not to the child, but to those the child would have helped.

In both cases, we cannot pinpoint the harm being done. I know my child will be harmed, but I don't know how. Point is, I also know that the people he would have helped would be harmed by him not being around but I don't know how, in the exact same way. So now EITHER option is risky. Either option harms people.

The point is that the only difference between causing harm by having a kid and causing harm by not having a kid is time, and the degree to which the harm was caused directly. But in both cases harm is caused.

And curse it also sometimes, but often enough they will cherish it — Olivier5

The argument would be that it is not ethical to force someone into such a position. Like forcing someone to play a game. Just because most people like the game most of the time doesn't give me justification to force you to play it. When the alternative is completely harmless (supposedly).

Antinatalists like their life or hope it will get better. Ok. Now what?

Sorry if my response came out a bit condescending. — Isaac

It's not that it's just the change of tone that's funny.

I'm impressed you'd have the intellectual honesty to do so. — Isaac

You're just being disingenuous now. — Isaac

All good man.
Still:

But then how do you deal with a The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas situation? By this logic, it would be fine to do what was done in the book. Imagine for instance, that you knew your next child will be absolutely miserable, to a point where normally you would consider it wrong to have them (warzone, genetic illness, poverty, you name it), but would cure cancer. Is it ok to have them? — khaled

And I admit being angry and combative on my part probably only makes it harder. — Echarmion

Lol. You think that is angry and combative? You were the nicest guy I disagreed with in a while on this site.

I find that it's a trend that the more posts you have on this site the more combative you become. Looking at you Isaac. And the departed S.

How would you respond to this?

The claim is that, by not having children, you are harming those they could have helped. And I don't really find "You couldn't know that having children will result in them helping people more than average" convincing but it was my first line of defense. Most people have a positive impact overall I'd say.

And if you want to commit to "It is not harming them since you were never responsible for them" then that would put you in a weird situation when it comes to saving drowning people. Because then it becomes wrong to save them. They could have been trying to commit suicide. And by saving them you risk harming them. However, if not being responsible for someone means you are not harming them, then by not saving the drowning person you are not harming them (since you can't really argue that you have a responsibility there, unless you're a life guard). So it becomes: Save(risk of harm) or Don't Save(No risk of harm) and by that logic you would be obligated to let them drown.

Point is that it becomes similar to the situation of finding someone drowning. I apply my system:

Would they have suffered if I hadn't been there? Yes. Ergo, I do not have to pick the least harmful option (because it's not my responsibility), but I still can

Now we consider alternatives:
1- Save the drowning person / Have children:
Likely to be good overall. Small chance of being bad overall.

2- Do not save the drowning person / Do not have children:
Likely to be bad overall. Small chance of being good overall.

The key is that option 2 is actually more risky. And is not 0 risk, if you consider the "system" as comprising of everyone not just the parent and child.

So the less risky option is clearly 1. But you do not have to pick this.