But can Tom make his own arguments? Now this changes the path this takes. — schopenhauer1

Sure. I’m just adding mine.

I now have to choose to argue your particular line of thought. — schopenhauer1

If you want to. But that got us nowhere last time.

If you want to. But that got us nowhere last time. — khaled

Right, so that's why I don't get what's the point of commenting. We've argued more or less the same things before. Also it's going to now be Tom possibly piling onto your arguments rather than making an original one.

Because not doing it is also harmful. To the people already here. — khaled

So we've argued this point before.. You are going to do the lifeguard argument, I presented what I thought about that. Is that where you are going with it again?

I am very concerned people want to see X from another person because they have a vision that just needs to happen for the other person. — schopenhauer1

But proponents of antinatalism are doing the same thing: they want to see other people stop procreating because they (ie. the antinatalists) have a vision that just needs to happen for the other people.

Antinatalism, precisely because of its specific anti-life content, is not a stance that can be backed up by empathy or compassion for other people.

If someone argues for selective natalism/selective antinatalism (as has typically been the case throughout human history, such as in the form of forbidding sex outside of marriage, killing defective newborns, or stigmatizing unwed mothers and their children), then this can still be motivated by empathy or compassion for one of more parties involved.

But with antinatalism, there can be no such motivation -- other than to please the ego of the antinatalist (who will be dead within a few decades anyway, so why care about him).

But proponents of antinatalism are doing the same thing: they want to see other people stop procreating because they (ie. the antinatalists) have a vision that just needs to happen for the other people. — baker

But it's stopping other people from creating new people. It's not stopping other people from doing what they want to themselves.

Antinatalism, precisely because of its specific anti-life content, is not a stance that can be backed up by empathy or compassion for other people. — baker

Antinatalism is about empathy or compassion for the future people that would be created by the procreators.

If someone argues for selective natalism/selective antinatalism (as has typically been the case throughout human history, such as in the form of forbidding sex outside of marriage, killing defective newborns, or stigmatizing unwed mothers and their children), then this can still be motivated by empathy or compassion for one of more parties involved. — baker

This actually seems unempathetic.. being more akin to eugenics and nefarious programs in the past. I also don't see how shaming people is compassionate.. Rather, it's just more social pressures to see a certain outcome- ends justify the means. Antinatalists don't usually shame as a strategy though I'm sure some individuals do. Rather, they present the logic which may be hard pill to swallow but not trying to shame one after the fact.

But with antinatalism, there can be no such motivation -- other than to please the ego of the antinatalist (who will be dead within a few decades anyway, so why care about him). — baker

The motivation is to prevent future sufferers from suffering. That seems pretty egoless being that the antinatalist has nothing themselves to gain from it, since they already exist and all.

Have you ever consistently made an effort to have a pessimistic attitude to life, yet were able to dilligently get up every morning and do your work well?
— baker

Much work gets done because it has to be or X will happen. — schopenhauer1

IOW, you haven't consistently practiced pessimism.
Getting up in the morning and thinking, "Oh no, not this again", but then getting dressed and going to work and doing it well is merely dilettante pessimism.

One of the points of the OP is not only do we survive, we can evaluate any given task needed to survive (in the socio-economic-cultural superstructure). That's why I see this situation as a negative. Here we are, being able to negatively evaluate the very tasks needed to survive (and find comfort and survive).

Yes, we've been over this. I'm not seeing anything special in this. You need to break eggs in order to make an omelette. Most people don't cry over the eggs being broken.

(and find comfort and survive).

What do you mean by "find comfort"?
Are you saying that you see the futility of life as it is usually lived, but you nevertheless find ways to feel comforted? By what, how?

merely dilettante pessimism. — baker

You'd have to explain that. Pessimism doesn't mean an utter inability to do what one doesn't want to.

Yes, we've been over this. I'm not seeing anything special in this. You need to break eggs in order to make an omelette. Most people don't cry over the eggs being broken. — baker

I should get a shirt that says "Most people". Most people have negative evaluations at some point. This is not a rare thing.

What do you mean by "find comfort"?
Are you saying that you see the futility of life as it is usually lived, but you nevertheless find ways to feel comforted? By what, how? — baker

It goes back to my usual categorization of basic human drives- survival (through socio-economic-cultural means in the human animal), comfort-seeking (not necessary to survive but nice to have.. get warmer/cooler, clean the house, etc.), and entertainment (you don't need it for survival, or comfort, but out of restlessness and novelty in one's life). Of course, any X experience can have all three overlapping or in any combination.. like being entertained by cleaning, and its more comfortable, and you get paid for it..etc.

Antinatalism is about empathy or compassion for the future people that would be created by the procreators. — schopenhauer1

But since, if the antinatalist is successful in convincing other people not to procreate, the potential future people will not exist anyway, so no compassion or empathy for them, so the point is moot.

Compassion and empathy are meaningful only in relation to already existing entities.
It's not possible to feel actual empathy for someone whom you don't know because they don't exist.

The compassion and empathy you're talking about are idle perversions.

This actually seems unempathetic.. being more akin to eugenics and nefarious programs in the past. I also don't see how shaming people is compassionate.. Rather, it's just more social pressures to see a certain outcome- ends justify the means.

It's empathy and compassion for existing people -- such as for those who are burdened with looking after orphans or the defective. Social norms are there to protect and serve the normal, the majority.

The motivation is to prevent future sufferers from suffering.

But there are not going to be any future sufferers!

That seems pretty egoless being that the antinatalist has nothing themselves to gain from it, since they already exist and all.

It looks more like the final drop of pleasure that the antinatalist is trying to squeeze out of life.

merely dilettante pessimism.
— baker

You'd have to explain that. Pessimism doesn't mean an utter inability to do what one doesn't want to. — schopenhauer1

Consequent pessimism is paralyzing. You're at most, talking about occasionally having some pessimistic thoughts. I'm talking about real, consequent 24/7 pessimism. That's the kind that makes one see the futility of every human action, 24/7.

But since, if the antinatalist is successful in convincing other people not to procreate, the potential future people will not exist anyway, so no compassion or empathy for them, so the point is moot. — baker

I've written hundreds of posts on the non-identity argument against antinatalism. A future person would exist otherwise that would be harmed. I can refer you to more expanded versions of this debate if you want.

Compassion and empathy are meaningful only in relation to already existing entities. — baker

Not true, otherwise people would have no consideration whatsoever for the outcome and welfare of a future person, baby, child.

The compassion and empathy you're talking about are idle perversions. — baker

Not sure why it can't be extended to people that would exist but are prevented from doing so if otherwise not precautionary.

It's empathy and compassion for existing people -- such as for those who are burdened with looking after orphans or the defective. Social norms are there to protect and serve the normal, the majority. — baker

Defective? Damn look who's harsh here. Ok, well, new social norms have and can be implemented. One where compassion extends to people who might exist, but can be prevented from doing so. Compassion the harm that could have taken place.

But there are not going to be any future sufferers! — baker

If suffering is almost a guarantee once born, then yes there would be.

It looks more like the final drop of pleasure that the antinatalist is trying to squeeze out of life. — baker

Final drop of pleasure-- because it is suggesting to current people born to not screw with other people by procreating them? They are not saying to not do X, Y, Z for themselves. There's many ways one can try to find happiness without it involving other people's states of being.

Compassion and empathy are meaningful only in relation to already existing entities.
— baker

Not true, otherwise people would have no consideration whatsoever for the outcome and welfare of a future person, baby, child. — schopenhauer1

False. Consideration can be motivated by other things than just empathy and compassion. Habit, pathological altruism, pride or the desire to look good in the eyes of others can result in acting in ways that can seem as being motivated by empathy and compassion.

The compassion and empathy you're talking about are idle perversions.
— baker
Not sure why it can't be extended to people that would exist but are prevented from doing so if otherwise not precautionary.

It's like having compassion and empathy for fictional characters in a book or a film. It's not a meaningful way to have empathy and compassion.

It's a compassion and an empathy that doesn't take the other person into consideration as they actually are, as persons -- and it can't, because that other person doesn't actually exist. It's not emapthy and it's not compassion. It's pity and it's patronizing. And people have plenty of that indeed. It seems to make them feel really good!

Defective? Damn look who's harsh here. Ok, well, new social norms have and can be implemented. One where compassion extends to people who might exist, but can be prevented from doing so. Compassion the harm that could have taken place.

All along, I've been privately comparing your antinatalist stance with the antinatalism that can be found in Early Buddhism. I don't recall ever seeing the argument that the reason why one should be celibate is out of compassion for others (although the point does come up in popular Buddhist discourse).
I certainly don't find your line of reasoning convincing, even though I would, for all practical intents and purposes, describe myself as at least a selective antinatalist.

It looks more like the final drop of pleasure that the antinatalist is trying to squeeze out of life.
— baker
Final drop of pleasure-- because it is suggesting to current people born to not screw with other people by procreating them? They are not saying to not do X, Y, Z for themselves.

It goes back to what's in it for the antinatalist.

There's many ways one can try to find happiness without it involving other people's states of being.

Do list at least three such ways.

False. Consideration can be motivated by other things than just empathy and compassion. Habit, pathological altruism, pride or the desire to look good in the eyes of others can result in acting in ways that can seem as being motivated by empathy and compassion. — baker

Either way there will be a person that exists, and you are taking into consideration the suffering that person would suffer. I find it hilarious that when it comes to these forums future conditionals go out the window in the name of "metaphysics".

It's like having compassion and empathy for fictional characters in a book or a film. It's not a meaningful way to have empathy and compassion.

It's a compassion and an empathy that doesn't take the other person into consideration as they actually are, as persons -- and it can't, because that other person doesn't actually exist. It's not emapthy and it's not compassion. It's pity and it's patronizing. And people have plenty of that indeed. It seems to make them feel really good! — baker

Um, so if a couple KNEW that by procreating there is a 100% chance that the child that would exist would live a horrible life, they should not take this into consideration? Get outta here.

All along, I've been privately comparing your antinatalist stance with the antinatalism that can be found in Early Buddhism. I don't recall ever seeing the argument that the reason why one should be celibate is out of compassion for others (although the point does come up in popular Buddhist discourse).
I certainly don't find your line of reasoning convincing, even though I would, for all practical intents and purposes, describe myself as at least a selective antinatalist. — baker

Buddhism is its own can of worms. Even though technically suffering can be achieve with antinatalist policy within a generation, I believe that Buddhism believes that reincarnation into a human form needs to happen in order for nirvana and enlightenment to be achieved. So in a way, it is oddly necessary for some to procreate so people can have a chance to realize nirvana. Well, I say: OR you can just not procreate. Maybe they are alluding to a sort of inevitability of evolution on Earth to lead to other animals to suffer, including eventually, self-aware animals. My AN was always centered around self-aware animals such as ourselves.

It goes back to what's in it for the antinatalist. — baker

Preventing yet another person from suffering. Keep it nonexistent please.

Do list at least three such ways. — baker

Um, any activity you do outside of childrearing or related to childrearing. That's literally millions of things. Sports, hobbies, recreation, entertainment, anything.

I find it hilarious that when it comes to these forums future conditionals go out the window in the name of "metaphysics". — schopenhauer1

Not in this case.

It's like having compassion and empathy for fictional characters in a book or a film. It's not a meaningful way to have empathy and compassion.

It's a compassion and an empathy that doesn't take the other person into consideration as they actually are, as persons -- and it can't, because that other person doesn't actually exist. It's not emapthy and it's not compassion. It's pity and it's patronizing. And people have plenty of that indeed. It seems to make them feel really good!
— baker

Um, so if a couple KNEW that by procreating there is a 100% chance that the child that would exist would live a horrible life, they should not take this into consideration? Get outta here.

I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

But you're evading the point. I'm saying that your antinatalist has motivations that are lowlier than empathy and compassion. I'm saying that your antinatalist has merely pity and patronizing. Or possibly worse.

Buddhism is its own can of worms. Even though technically suffering can be achieve with antinatalist policy within a generation,

Not according to Buddhism; and this is because merely dying doesn't guarantee cessation of suffering.
Your "solution" to the problem of suffering doesn't solve it; it amounts to "no man, no problem". It's akin to saying that the solution to global warming is to nuke planet Earth out of existence.
But Buddhism proposes a solution to the problem of suffering that people can actually experience.
Not that I'm a Buddhist, BTW, I'm just comparing your approach with another one.

It goes back to what's in it for the antinatalist.
— baker
Preventing yet another person from suffering. Keep it nonexistent please.

What do _you_ get from other people not being born?

How many times do I need to repeat my question?????

Um, any activity you do outside of childrearing or related to childrearing. That's literally millions of things. Sports, hobbies, recreation, entertainment, anything.

Granted, one can try to find happiness those ways. The operative term being "try". The problem is that there is no lasting happiness to be found in those things.

Not according to Buddhism; and this is because merely dying doesn't guarantee cessation of suffering.
Your "solution" to the problem of suffering doesn't solve it; it amounts to "no man, no problem". It's akin to saying that the solution to global warming is to nuke planet Earth out of existence.
But Buddhism proposes a solution to the problem of suffering that people can actually experience.
Not that I'm a Buddhist, BTW, I'm just comparing your approach with another one. — baker

So let's break it down into one case.. work.

Scenario A: A world exists in which people are more-or-less born into having to LABOR to stay alive and comfortable.

Scenario B: A world exists where people are not born into having to LABOR to stay alive and comfortable.

Scenario A is a de facto "force" upon someone (lest they choose to slowly die via homelessness and neglect, or rapid suicide).

Scenario B is NOT de facto "forced" upon any "ONE" (as there is no "one" who exists to be "forced" not to work).

Even if someone "LIKES" work, that doesn't justify to go ahead and force others to do the same, because they simply "like" it. However, scenario B can never be symmetrical to scenario A because even if someone would have "liked" work if they were born, no "one" is actually deprived of such a thing if prevented from coming to an existence.

This asymmetry holds for other things as well, not just de facto forced situations, but also suffering in general.

The mistake you're making at the most fundamental level is assuming that it is people who produce other people, with nothing else required. When actually so much that needs to take place in order for a human to be born is outside of the prospective parents' control (from the ability of the man's body to produce viable sperm to things such as the drinking water not containing pesticides that could abort the fetus).
And it's precisely because so many things are outside of people's control when it comes to reproduction that they can't take full and meaningful responsibility for it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nowadays, birth can be reasonably prevented.