You could claim that the parents forced a gamete to become a person. — Isaac

The parents willfully initiated a process which they knew would result in a person being born and thus forced to live.

An act of force.

Note that your argument is about causal chains, and that, apparently, one can only be responsible for the first step.

I only pulled a trigger, I never shot the gun. It's the bullet that killed him, but I am innocent!

And more importantly still, what difference does it make? Clearly an act of force took place.

Can one be born without being alive? :chin:

To be born is to be forced by one's parents to live.

That seems like such an obvious statement of fact that I'm struggling to understand why this is still under debate.

But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? — schopenhauer1

It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point.

No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious.

It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in?

Collectivism may have some merit at the local level, where people cooperate voluntarily and the ties that group them together are tangible.

However, the larger the scope becomes, the more abstract these supposed ties become, the more imaginary (that is to say, non-existent) the group, the more it must rely on coercion and generally the more problematic the results become.

At a certain point it seems that collectivism no longer cares about its (supposed) members, and it becomes an exercise in what is essentially slavery - the subjugation of its (supposed) members to the group ideal, regardless of their individual wishes.


Suppose I find myself in my local recruiter's office, and he intends to draft me for the Vietnam War.
I look at the Vietnam War and conclude that based on what I see, there's no way I have anything in common with the nation that conducts it - I am not an American.

How does the recruiter solve this? What tangible link can the recruiter point to that would save his case, that I am indeed an American and have a duty to go to Vietnam and fight there?

Unless one voluntarily took upon themselves the responsibility to take care of another's well-being, or is themselves the cause of another's suffering, non-interference is always a morally neutral option.

Scenario 1 and 3 essentially portray that this idea about morality involves freedom of choice.

The moral agent is free to involve themselves, or not. Involving oneself can give an opportunity to do good, however one may also pass up on an opportunity to do good.

As for scenario 2, that one cannot simply force others to cater to one's needs should go without saying. If we were to consider that acceptable we'd be back in the jungle.

My problem is that if I say that, for example, murder is unethical then the result, if my view were ever to universally applied (unlikely), would be a happier and safer world. If I say that procreation is unethical then the result, if my view were applied universally (unlikely, again, as you say), would be an empty world. And an empty world, I cannot help feeling, might be a bad thing. I would be promoting an ethical principle which, if applied generally, would lead to a world without humans. That's my problem. — Cuthbert

These worries are fair and understandable. Let me say the following:

The prospect of no humans doesn't appeal to most humans. It doesn't appeal to me either. Yet, when we ask whether something is universalizable or not, we must ask ourselves if the situation that arises is immoral.

Is an empty world an immoral outcome, or just one that we as humans don't find very appealing?

My only qualm is this: if we all do the right thing and refrain from procreating then the human race will quickly cease to exist. And that (I'm tempted to believe, rightly or wrongly) is a bad thing. So by everyone behaving in a way that is beneficial, right and just - that is, by not procreating - then we would collectively create an empty world. — Cuthbert

Why would the existence of the human race even be on the individual's radar? They don't have an influence on whether the human race exists or not, nor will they be around to appreciate how the human race exists or not.

Ultimately moral behavior needs to be guided by rational ideas, and for humans to base their behavior on things they have no control over is, in my opinion, irrational.


Look around you. Is the extinction of the human race even a remote possibility today?

Clearly it is not, and it won't be tomorrow either.

If it even becomes a possibility, let the individuals that live then make their choices to avoid it, if they wish.


Finally, if by some unimaginable fluke all of mankind were to voluntarily decide that not procreating is indeed the moral thing to do, on what basis would you object to them making that voluntary decision?

If the human race is to continue .... — Cuthbert

Perhaps it's a scent of self-righteous free-loading hypocritical nonsense, or did I forget my after-shave? — Cuthbert

That's usually the idea I get when people claim their actions are motivated towards the survival of the human race. What benevolent and great beings to aspire to such lofty ideals!

If you really believe that the US military might stand back while China invades Taiwan because they "recognize" the "One China policy" then I got some people you need to talk to who have some beachfront property in Arizona they wish to sell to you at a great price. — dclements

It should be obvious that in such a scenario the United States may not want to defend Taiwan if it means sparking WWIII, hence they pursue strategic ambiguity.

Your argument is a strawman since I have said nothing to indicate that I believe that either Taiwan, Ukraine or Crimea have only symbolic value. In fact, nowhere have I even mentioned anything about Ukraine or Crimea in this thread so it is a given that you can only assume I might have such a position (just as you might assume that of anyone else on this forum) since I have said nothing on such matters. — dclements

You called Taiwan a trivial issue for the Chinese, which it clearly is not.

Thereby you are making the same mistake as the West has made in Ukraine. Assuming things to be trivial, when the reality is that Russia was prepared to go to war. Taiwan is of similar importance to China. The fact that the issue has been hot for over half a century should tell you enough.

You need to read my posts more carefully.

If they really want to go to war why should they wait till 2027, ... — dclements

Because countries cannot make navies out of thin air.

In terms of creating desires for useless stuff— “fashionable consumption,” etc. — this has a long history, has been studied, documented; not a controversial remark. — Xtrix

Useless by what measure? Obviously they must find some use for it - entertainment or otherwise. Why else would people spend money on it?

You’re free to ask me what I believe directly — Xtrix

What do you believe?

And yes, China is communist. — Xtrix

It's definitely not. Communism explicitly aims to socialize the bourgeoisie, that is to say, repress and steal from the upper middle and rich classes and (supposedly) give to the poor working class.

There's nothing communist about China anymore. Like Russia, China has more in common with a classic dictatorship.

Lol. Food, water, shelter, family, community. I view these as needs, or at least different than a new gadget every 2 years. — Xtrix

Those darned advertisers convincing people they need pointless luxuries!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take all of that money and instead use it for useful things?

I guess I’m part of a communist conspiracy. — Xtrix

Unlikely, but your characterization of advertising as a means to sell people things they don't need suggests you both consider people too stupid to make such choices for themselves and yourself an expert on determining what is best for others.

You may be a closet authoritarian, I'm afraid. Something which is not at all uncommon among those who harbor collectivist fantasies.

If you're the hippie commune type I take all of that back, but something tells me you're not.

I don’t think China is an example of communism at all, as I understand it. — Xtrix

Collectivism isn't the same as communism, and China isn't communist (anymore). However it is collectivist, since the individual has been completely subjugated to the whims of the CCP.

But I’m using your meaning, not mine. — Xtrix

You're using it poorly.

Yes, the United States has its problems — Xtrix

If you think I'm a fan of the United States then you are sadly mistaken. But if you want to compare the domestic policies of the US with China and suggest they're similar then that is laughable.

Xi Jinping is constantly getting upset about everything that goes on outside of his country that he can't do anything about. — dclements

Taiwan, even according to official United States policy, is a part of China. This has been United States policy since 1972 was reaffirmed explicitly as recently as 2017.

One China Policy

I think the language used in describing the situation is something like that if China attacks Taiwan, then the US will help Taiwan but not if Taiwan attacks China. — dclements

No. It's not like that. The United States has not made it clear whether it will protect Taiwan in case of a military invasion and explicitly has made no guarantees to do so. But it still might. That's the idea behind strategic ambiguity.

As I said before when a country like China is constantly threating to start World War III for trivial reasons... — dclements

Again, you're falling into the same trap the United States and Europe have fallen into with Russia. You assume that Taiwan, just like Ukraine and Crimea, has only symbolic value, and that those symbolic values only matter to crazy dictators in power.

This is plain short-sighted and wrong. The fact that both of these issues have been hot topics for decades, Taiwan for over half a century, should tell you that we're not talking about benign matters, but in fact matters that a country like China could actually go to war over.


Will they go to war now? It's not likely, I'll grant you that. According to some projections China is not expected to be ready to invade Taiwan until 2027. But projections can be wrong, and China could just be waiting for a pretense to strike. Consider also that China may have more instruments to start a conflict besides an all-out military invasion, and that retaliations against Taiwan or the United States may take a different form.

In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed. — Xtrix

Ah, one styles themselves the arbiter of who needs what. Spoken like a true 'collectivist'.

They can’t? China seems to be doing just fine. — Xtrix

China is an autocratic dictatorship. A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc.

Please don't use China as an example for successful collectivism. It's a powerful state. So were Nazi-Germany and the USSR. Were they successful collectivists by your standards?

A strange definition of collectivism, but OK. — Xtrix

That was not a definition, obviously. :roll:

Unlike Ukraine, the US has pledged that if China invades Taiwan we will get involved and help defend them against China. — dclements

As far as I know, the United States pursues a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity' in regards to Taiwan, meaning that they haven't made it explicitly clear whether they will defend Taiwan or not.

Didn't Biden say recently during a press conference they were committed to defending Taiwan, only for that statement to be recalled, reasserting their position was ambiguous as per the Taiwan Relations Act?

US State Department Walks Back Unusually Strong Comments on Taiwan

Taiwan Relations Act

It "may" be in China's best interest right now to look tough and do a lot of sabre rattling, but it isn't in their best interest to start a war with Taiwan and the US. — dclements

But they won't look very tough if the United States just goes ahead with their plan and they do not retaliate in any way. They'll look like chumps. And powerful nations do not like looking like chumps. Especially not China. Especially not now.

Because China's threats are nothing more than a lot of hot air it is the US best interest to go about business as usual and not pay any any attention to their empty threats. If you don't stand up to bullies on the world stage then the rest of the world will look at you as if you don't have any backbone. — dclements

They're nothing but hot air, until they're not. We've seen in Ukraine what it can lead to when the biggest bully on the block - the USA - ignores warnings from other nations they are going too far.

No, that would be capitalism. Brutal, inhumane, and reducing everyone and every thing to capital. — Xtrix

Sure, capitalism is far from perfect, but at least a successful capitalist has to produce something others want to buy, which is why its many evils also went along with many goods - history's collectivist projects cannot say the same.

You can have a collective without a state. — Xtrix

Two people can form a collective, technically. Though I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies (and in recent times also supranational organisations), and collectivist states to be states that act with collectivism as their goal.

But if one wishes to practice collectivism in a sort of hippie commune where everybody engages with each other on voluntary grounds, then who am I to oppose that?

If Pelosi visits and the Chinese government doesn't back up their threats, they will look weak.

But then again, what could they do? Attack?

Regardless, this will be a big event in China-US relations.

If China is forced to back down it will damage relations and fuel animostiy further, greatly increasing the likelihood of a military conflict over Taiwan in the near future. It could spark a Crimea/Ukraine-like situation where China, like Russia, is instilled with a sense of urgency to secure its outstanding claims before it's too late.

If China backs up their threats somehow, we could be looking at open war. The question is if in such a scenario Japan and South Korea would enter the war on the US-side, which would be a complete disaster and likely spark mass conflict, if not WWIII. For the US not to get involved military would be unlikely, considering their naval assets in the area, but they also never officially guaranteed Taiwan's independence (I think?), so perhaps there is a way out, though unlikely.

A very violatile situation. I don't think the United States is in a position to be waging any kind of war currently, and they are banking on the power of their deterrence to score a victory for the Biden administration - not unlike the Ukraine-situation. A dangerous gamble.

That despite having been tried and having produced by far the worst track record of any system in human history, collectivism still is supported shamelessly is truly a testament to mankind's ignorance.

The problem with collectivism is simple. It is the outright subjugation of the individual to the ideology of the state, and amounts to nothing less than slavery. And before anyone goes there, a slave who wears a fancy suit and is given priviledges by his slave owner is still a slave.

Every collectivist state pursues totalitarianism (whether explicitly, or by ignorance), and vilifies those who do not go along with their ideology. For the Third Reich it was the Jews that needed to be socialized. The USSR needed to sociailze the bourgoeisie.

Today it is man who the collectivists need socialized.

Man, with all his unfortunate ideas of individual freedom and rights.

Man, who by his unfortunate free will fails to fall into lockstep with the ideals of the state.

And their eagerness to forcefully subjugate those whom their arguments fail to persuade is evident. It took the western nations and institutions that are now openly flirting with tyranny hardly a year to turn from the world's leading proponents of individual liberty and justice, to states who took steps towards lawlessly socializing those who opposed them. Every excuse was grasped, every legislative loophole exploited, every repressive tool in the governmental toolkit utilized towards this end.

However, these aspiring Hitlerites also failed to see that their malpractices went unnoticed in the past precisely because they did not overtly display their power. The reason modern day tyranny may exist at all,(and precisely why it is so dangerous) is because it has become increasingly well adapted at hiding itself in the shadows. Deep inside institutions, lobby groups, academia and extrajudicial bodies.

Now the ugly beast has crawled out of its cave and showed the world its true face (not in the least because its rotten societal fruits could no longer be ignored either). And like all things vile and despicable, it does not withstand the light very well.

Bravo! :fire:

Any ideology that fails to take into account human (evolutionary) psychology & biology is going end up a magnificent failure! — Agent Smith

Attempting to turn people into worshippers of an ideology, which is what every ideology-based society tries to do, is a flawed endeavor to begin with. People and their ideas are flawed, and that goes double (nay triple) for governments.

The least flawed societies we have come up with are those that attempt to make these flawed people able to do the least amount of damage to each other, including and especially those who run the government.

I'm still trying to articulate this more clearly, but I'd like to ask you, can you define what it is that makes not imposing harms from scratch (for someone else) more ethically relevant than not causing benefits from scratch (for someone else)? — schopenhauer1

I lean strongly towards there being an ethical duty not to cause harm to others.

I don't believe there to be an ethical duty to cause good to others, because it would come with too many problems. It would imply a duty to meddle in other people's affairs, a duty to get involved in literally everything one possibly can, because not to cause good would be to neglect one's moral duty. People rarely (if ever) have a complete understanding of a given situation, so not only is the implication one MUST meddle, but also that one must do so with little more than ignorance as a basis. After all, all one has is one's subjective understanding.

Further, not to cause harm is an effort by the actor not to take actions that interfere with the will of a subject. To endeavor to cause all the good one can is to interfere regardless of the will of a subject.

Lastly, earlier in this thread I argued for non-interference being a morally neutral option. That means inaction is morally acceptable, even if it means potentially missing out on causing good. This flows from the first point, namely that if non-interference is not acceptable when there's a potential for good, it becomes a moral imperative to interfere in everything, with all the problems that brings.
And second, non-interference causes no harm.

Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? — schopenhauer1

I agree, this seems inconsistent. I've been using my sky-diving example to inquire about this very same question.

What you're after is objective morality, absolute authority. — baker

Ideally, yes. But in the absence of such sound, consistent reasoning will do.

Self-confidence, a "lust for life" are what gives a person the idea they have a right to procreate, ie. make such a decision for someone else in the first place. — baker

A very literal answer to my question, but ok.

Does it suffice?

If we can justify making a major imposition on someone else based on self-confidence, then that would open the door for a whole slew of behaviors that most would consider immoral.

What if I push someone off a building because I was extremely confident they were suicidal and wanted to make an end to their life?

Of all the evils of government, forcing individuals to kill and die is by far the worst.

“It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.” — NOS4A2

What a strange policy.

Voting lends legitimacy to a system, so essentially they're forcing their citizens to acknowledge the system as legitimate. An odd flirtation with tyranny.

If one doesn't vote because they do not wish to acknowledge the legitimacy of a system, that seems to me like a perfectly viable position to take.

We don't take kindly to people inquirin' 'bout climate change 'round these places.

Ok, sure.

But now turn that into something we can work with. Otherwise I'm left to guess what you think the implications are.

Suppose we do exist prior to birth as a human. What then? Would you not be depriving someone of joy by not letting him/her go to a fun-filled party ? — Agent Smith

While this supposition is obviously a bit of a stretch, I would say the following:

1). Just like the procreator has no right to decide for another they should play the game of life, neither does a person (who in this hypothetical exists prior to birth) have a right to demand it.

2). Life is not always a fun-filled party.

3). Since this ties into the earlier discussion, it's worth pointing out that even in this hypothetical, not procreating would not be depriving anyone of anything. The hypothetical person desires, and as a result of his desire suffers a lack. We don't create that lack.

Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. — baker

You'll need to elaborate on that, though honestly what we call it may not be all that relevant.

What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place? — Tzeentch

Self-confidence, a "lust for life". — baker

Why would self-confidence suffice in the case of procreation, when it clearly does not suffice anywhere else in life?

To go back to the sky-diving example, if I push someone out of a plane being extremely confident that they'll enjoy it, but instead they crash into the ground, does my self-confidence make any difference as to the nature of what just happened?

I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?).

I genuinely cannot imagine what a life without any pain looks like, and I wonder if it wouldn't make the whole ordeal more meaningless?

People do not hold that as a moral belief because it is impossible to adhere to — Isaac

That has never stopped anyone. It certainly hasn't stopped you in the past.

Remember how your beliefs lead to one committing infinite moral transgressions?

Right.

Go ahead and argue that not causing irreversible harm to others without their consent isn't a basic moral belief most people hold. I'd love to hear about it.

Weren't you so fond of "reasonableness" and morality by majority decision? Well here you have it.

There’s something else going on here too. Where the already existing people can’t help but try to endure the stress of existence, by putting a new person in the fray, it’s creating yet more harm and harm-overcoming upon someone else in order to try to fix the current problems. The ultimate case of using people. — schopenhauer1

But it’s even worse cause it’s combining the two. I’m having a problem, therefore I will force recruit yet more people into the pyramid scheme operation that creates another person to endure harm itself. It actually solves nothing but to further continue the creating of victims. — schopenhauer1

I think the objection would be that many here believe us not just to be victims, but also beneficiaries. Would that change the nature of the pyramid scheme?

Of course, who are we to decide others must participate when we don't even know whether they'll be a victim or a beneficiary?

Strictly speaking you're right, of course. What I sought to convey was that procreation breaks some rules that many procreators themselves would consider the basics of moral interaction between individuals. It was not an attempt at a conclusive argument.

Indeed the (mathematical) method I propose is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have at present - wild shots in the dark! — Agent Smith

I'll give you that. :up:

So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails? — Isaac

Probability is just a fundamentally flawed way of approaching these things, but:

One should definitely avoid actions that:
1). Cannot be performed consensually.
2). And are also irreversible.
3). And can also inflict great harm.
4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of.

Seems like a pretty decent set of criteria for any interaction with people. I don't see why procreation should be treated any different, and note that procreation checks all of these boxes.

As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms). — Isaac

Leaning on probability is just an admission of ignorance. One may need probability because one doesn't understand the cause and effect behind a certain phenomenon, so how is one going to base a philosophical argument on something one doesn't understand?

Probability is not something that exists in reality, they're practical assumptions we use as tools. Amongst other things, it's philosphy's job to question these assumptions to see if they hold any merit.

The thing is, my argument doesn't require knowledge of future harms at all. The fact that they're unknown is enough.

Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out. — schopenhauer1

Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm).

As you pointed out, this leads to a slippery slope. If not doing something creates conditions for harm, then we are creating harm continuously through all the actions we are not taking.

The second way of tackling this argument is through attacking the notion that not doing something causes something. Ergo, not helping the drowning man causes him to drown. While this may sound intuitively reasonable, it is an erroneous way of representing cause and effect. The man drowns because he ended up in the water and could not swim. Not because I did not help him. Had I not been there at all, the man would have also drowned.

Based on the aforementioned, the way I sought to definitively solve this issue is by considering "not acting", non-interference, not getting involved, etc. neutral. Not moral, nor immoral. Because:
1). If the opposite is true, one would creates infinite harm because of the infinite actions one did not take, and that is absurd.
2). One is not causing harm.

Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an equally strong argument in favor of antinatalism, since by procreating one is undeniably making major choices on someone else's behalf without knowing what the person will experience and how they will enjoy it.

The common defense is that such decisions on behalf of someone else are acceptable under certain conditions, and the condition which satisfies many of the 'pro-natalists' is that it seems the chance of a good life is higher than that of a miserable one.

That seems like a flimsy argument to me, and I think the example of pushing someone out of a plane with a 90% chance of enjoying the experience and a 10% chance of crashing into the ground illustrates it well. What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?

We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically. — Agent Smith

And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?

Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone?

If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. — Isaac

No, an intention does not mean involvement. I may consider getting involved and then decide not to, and I wasn't involved before, during or after the decision is made.

So, an act then. — Isaac

Walking is an act. Non-interference is not.

I may be walking while I'm not involved in something. That doesn't make not being involved an act.

Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? — Isaac

Zero. It's your actual playing of the game that will give you a chance of winning, not your intention.

So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else? — Isaac

It's not a decision I make for someone else. It's a decision that I make for myself.

You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved. — Isaac

If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being.

Note that this is not a default situation. It requires specific actions from me prior to the ordeal for this to be the case.

Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an act. It's literally not being involved.

The reason I switched to using this term is because even when one is not involved with things, one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. Therefore "inaction" was confusing and strictly speaking inaccurate. It has nothing to do with non-interference being an act.

So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.

You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100? — Isaac

You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting.

Is placing a bet on roulette not an interaction?

Oops.

So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm? — Isaac

I don't agree on that, though certainly increasing the probability of harm sounds like a foolish thing to do.

Probability conveys ignorance. It means we are unable to determine cause and effect. What it means to say that procreation "merely increases the probability of harm" is that we're ignorant to the causes and effects related to procreation.

Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral.