Granted. But to be fair, have people ever really been presented with antinatalist arguments? Only people on philosophy forums and niche groups probably. So it really hasn't been tested either. — schopenhauer1

Apart from the relatively small group of people who have found themselves forced by external circumstances not to have children, antinatalist views are reserved for the privileged who can afford not to have children.

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds.

There's a weird thing where not only does the argument have to be good, but the presentation of the argument must be convincing to really make people do something from it. It is a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos.

I don't think this is weird at all. Why would it be weird?

Do you want to be like religious people who rattle down their doctrine and demand people to just believe it??

Are you asking if I envy animals their thoughtless way of life, or people who don't think about procreation in political terms (e.g. creating more laborers who can evaluate their laboring as negative)?

If the latter, I don't envy them. /.../ — schopenhauer1

If you don't envy them, then what do you do? Fear them?

This is more refined in that it is less obvious. It is about our very ability to understand what we are doing as we are doing it, and seeing it as negative, but still knowing we have to do it to survive.

The pronatalists are posing a threat to your survival, doubly so: 1. to your person (which is endangered by pollution, socio-economic collapse, etc. posed by (over)population); 2. to your idea of what life on Earth should be like.

See, if you'd be a true pessimist and a true antinatalist, you'd just chuck the pronatalists and the gloomy prospects for planet Earth in the fuck it bin. But you don't do that. You argue against them on an internetz forum. Because even as a pessimist and an antinatalist, you still want to have a good life, right?

Apart from the relatively small group of people who have found themselves forced by external circumstances not to have children, antinatalist views are reserved for the privileged who can afford not to have children. — baker

That makes no sense.

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds. — baker

Are you saying antinatalists don't have to work? Did you pull this statistic out of your ass or is your head stuck up there? I've seen several YouTube videos of poorer socioeconomic people and minorities advocating for antinatalism. Frankly, there are AN movements from all over the world, supposedly "third world" and first world. Of course, that doesn't make for statistics- just anecdote. Either way, your statements make no sense. Why would non-privileged people not be able to NOT have children?

I don't think this is weird at all. Why would it be weird? — baker

I was just stating that you need a combination of the three with political arguments. The pure logic of it doesn't seem to usually affect people.

Do you want to be like religious people who rattle down their doctrine and demand people to just believe it?? — baker

No religious people use the same tactics everyone else uses but for ridiculous positions usually. They try to use pathos, logos, ethos, etc. They do rely a lot on ethos though of their position as doctor of the church or something of that nature. The logic is usually of a medieval scholastic nature if at all. The pathos is usually some sort of emotional plea like a television preacher or some more typical carrot-and-stick approach.

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds.
— baker

Are you saying antinatalists don't have to work? — schopenhauer1

Read again.
It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds.

Did you pull this statistic out of your ass or is your head stuck up there?

*sigh*

Either way, your statements make no sense.

If you'd read them, they would.

Why would non-privileged people not be able to NOT have children?

Many people need to have children, in order to produce laborers to help them and to provide a measure of security for when they are unable to work.

Further, in order to endure the hardship of the daily grind, one needs to have a measure of optimism, needs to believe that it's all worth it somehow, that it all somehow makes sense.
Many people find this meaning and this optimism in having children: they work hard in order to provide for their children; their children make their hard work seem worthwhile. In contrast, working hard in an effort to pay for one's hedonistic pursuits is seen as empty, worthless, decadent by some (many, if not most?) people.

I was just stating that you need a combination of the three with political arguments. The pure logic of it doesn't seem to usually affect people.

Sure. Why on earth should it??

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds. — baker

Again, makes no sense. (and I really want to add fuckn before sense. You have to explain this as it is not evident by just you stating this as fact.

Many people need to have children, in order to produce laborers to help them and to provide a measure of security for when they are unable to work. — baker

I mean there is also a lot of upfront investment in this retirement plan (upbringing, education in business of work, feeding housing, etc.). But I see we are talking about mainly third-world situations here, and in those situations it is not so cut-and-dry. Many people die and the large birth rate leads to other things down the line that lead to negative consequences. Granted, the subsistence farmer isn't thinking about this. I guess then my main argument is that the the "living on a thin line" existence can be ended within one generation rather than its perpetuation. I believe all humans have the capacity to consider various arguments. They simply haven't had exposure to this one. I am not saying they would fully embrace it, but I am sure a subset of people from any subsistence society would consider it logical to them, and refrain from procreation. It's not so "If/then" as you seem to indicate.

Further, in order to endure the hardship of the daily grind, one needs to have a measure of optimism, needs to believe that it's all worth it somehow, that it all somehow makes sense. — baker

I mean, again this is a statement without evidence. People do things for many reasons.. competition, spite, not to get hassled, not to worry about dealing with it in the future, or purely to not lose what they have. It doesn't have to be optimistic reasons.

Many people find this meaning and this optimism in having children: they work hard in order to provide for their children; their children make their hard work seem worthwhile. In contrast, working hard in an effort to pay for one's hedonistic pursuits is seen as empty, worthless, decadent by some (many, if not most?) people. — baker

Although I agree people do see some sort of meaning by having children, this doesn't negate the arguments of antinatalism. It is dealing with other people's lives, so we must tread lightly on how rightful this is. It isn't just, "X circumstance gives my life meaning, thus this is right and good". That is just fastforwarding to what you want to hear. I will give charity to people because birthing a whole new person is really the only thing of its kind. One cannot analogize it to anything else- teaching, caretakers, adoption, etc. Those are people that already exist. So it is hard to explain why this circumstance of procreation, while seeming similar to those, are not because it is creating an new instance from nothingness, and this new instance has implications of suffering far down the line.

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds.
— baker

Again, makes no sense. (and I really want to add fuckn before sense. You have to explain this as it is not evident by just you stating this as fact. — schopenhauer1

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?

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. 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).

@Albero@180 Proof@Bitter Crank@norm@Tom Storm

So one of the other main points with the political slant here is that when a parent decides to procreate a new child, they are also becoming a witting (or mostly unwitting) participant in keeping that society/state's structure perpetuating and maintained. They become the literal bearers of their country's/state's progeny and duplication. When you think about it like that, it is a bit odd and seems to be a question of how people are being used in a way for this replication process. It is a political question to decide "Yes!! A new person should be reinforcing and perpetuating the ways of life of this political entity!". One is being complicit with one's government/body politic/institution, etc.

when a parent decides to procreate a new child, they are also becoming a witting (or mostly unwitting) participant in keeping that society/state's structure perpetuating and maintained. They become the literal bearers of their country's/state's progeny and duplication. — schopenhauer1

I've known a number of parents who are hoping their child becomes an iconoclast who will help bring down the state's structure. Don't underestimate the revolutionary projects of some would be parents.

I've known a number of parents who are hoping their child becomes an iconoclast who will help bring down the state's structure. Don't underestimate the revolutionary projects of some would be parents. — Tom Storm

Well, I did say "unwitting" participant's too. Most likely they will contribute to the economy in some way, even if they write some "revolutionary" blogposts and social media posts :D.

Most likely they will contribute to the economy in some way, even if they write some "revolutionary" blogposts and social media posts :D. — schopenhauer1

For sure, but they may do more than play around on social media - they might work in politics, in unions, in activism, in medical care, in civil rights law, in drug law reform, in a range of subversive activities.

For sure, but they may do more than play around on social media - they might work in politics, in unions, in activism, in medical care, in civil rights law, in drug law reform, in a range of subversive activities. — Tom Storm

Not sure how "subversive" that is. It is contributing, just in a different way and would make the country stronger in the long-run. Don't see how that contradicts the point.

Not sure how "subversive" that is. It is contributing, just in a different way and would make the country stronger in the long-run. Don't see how that contradicts the point. — schopenhauer1

I'm not contradicting your point, I am contributing to your point, just not in full support.

What do you think you are trying to achieve in general terms?

I'm not contradicting your point, I am contributing to your point, just not in full support.

What do you think you are trying to achieve in general terms? — Tom Storm

I am saying that by procreating people, you are willing (or unwitting) participants in perpetuating your socio-economic-cultural institutions (including governments, etc.). You have become oddly, a "political advocate" by adding more workers to the economy, more hands on deck, etc.

I am saying that by procreating people, you are willing (or unwitting) participants in perpetuating your socio-economic-cultural institutions (including governments, etc.). — schopenhauer1

I understand you think this but why is it a problem?

Pretty much addressed in OP:
1) Social structures of economic, political, cultural institutions that de facto need to be entered into in order to survive, find comfort, and fill time with entertainment.

2) Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them.

Why does this package seem justified to perpetuate onto more people born into the world?

Is there a quasi-religious element of some "mission" involved in this?

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view?

To make it more succinct:
Having children is essentially pressing more people into the system. Preventing birth is not pressing more people into the system. Why press more people into the system? Is it bad to advocate to potential parents to NOT press more people into the system? Procreators are voting with their gametes. Antinatalists are voting with their persuasion.

To proclaim the rare poster @Inyenzi, antinatalists are in a way "boycotting" the system, and not being complicit in perpetuating it to yet another person who must be laborers, and self-aware of the laboring and may evaluate any given task in their laboring as negative.. and thus don't want to expose yet more laborers to the system.

Then this again goes back to the OP:

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view? — schopenhauer1

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view? — schopenhauer1

Yes, I remember these points. This is obviously very important to you. The argument seems lacking in focus to me.

I don't think the 'package', as you put it, is praised - the world, our country is in constant tension, disagreement and nascent revolution. And doesn't it make sense that the powerful in a status quo oppose change? Also many if not most people are afraid of radical change for good reasons. You can always make things worse. No one really knows how to make things better. Just look at the culture war over taxation reform or a simple thing like health care.

People see having children as a way to escape from the system. For many people having a child recalibrates who they are and rebuilds the world.

People see having children as a way to escape from the system. For many people having a child recalibrates who they are and rebuilds the world. — Tom Storm

Yet having a child shouldn't be about the person having the child, but the child itself. It affects someone else.. They could also meditate and take art classes.. but this pursuit somehow gets a pass even if it (excuse my French) is fucking with another person in the most profound way possible (their very state of being put into the world and having to contend with that). Post-facto justifications of good upbringing hopefulness, does not negate that one is putting yet another laborer in the economic-systemic fray. Why is this a good thing to do to someone else? Antinatalists want to stop this "pressing" of more laborers.. even if people don't think about their procreation in those terms, they are doing it, so advocacy to get more awareness of this. The parents are voting "YES MORE LABORERS!" (even if unwittingly). The antinatlists are saying, stop.

And here inevitably implicit weird justifications of the following ensue:
1. Protestant work ethic.. people need to be laborers so they can be happy laboring (work sets you free!)

2. People need to work for a future technological utopia or purely to create new technology (better plastic, more screens, yay we go to Jupiter and Beyond!)

Of course no one by necessity "needs" anything prior to birth, as there is no "one" there. So, it is purely to see various ideologies carried out, like people who are put into existence to labor and its supposed ensuing "meaning" from the laboring that "has" to be had by "someone". Odd.

Antinatalists want to stop this "pressing" of more laborers.. even if people don't think about their procreation in those terms, they are doing it, so advocacy to get more awareness of this. The parents are voting "YES MORE LABORERS!" (even if unwittingly). The antinatlists are saying, stop. — schopenhauer1

Here's the thing: What's in it for the antinatalists??

What do antinatalists get or hope to get if other people stop producing children?

What do antinatalists get or hope to get if other people stop producing children? — baker

Less people who suffer and forced into X system that can be negatively evaluated. If one cares about the ethic, then one advocates strongly for it. There's also a justice thing.. Unjust to bring more laborers, suffering, extend the superstructure because you want it.

Less people who suffer and forced into X system that can be negatively evaluated. If one cares about the ethic, then one advocates strongly for it. There's also a justice thing.. Unjust to bring more laborers, suffering, extend the superstructure because you want it. — schopenhauer1

I'm curious why this matters so much to you. Do you feel you were thrown into the world (apologies to Heidegger) and that this is unfair and has lead to suffering?

I'm curious why this matters so much to you. Do you feel you were thrown into the world (apologies to Heidegger) and that this is unfair and has lead to suffering? — Tom Storm

IF you want a whole thread on the subject of the phrase "thrown into the world" and how it's used as a colloquialism, not a metaphysical statement, see my 5000 other posts on the subject :p. So, if you wanna go there, I'll just send you links to the lengthy threads on the matter.

And, what do you think?

And, what do you think? — schopenhauer1

People being born doesn't really concern me. I am more interested in behavior once they are here.

People being born doesn't really concern me. I am more interested in behavior once they are here. — Tom Storm

It concerns me that people want to see behaviors and thus create people to see them carried out. A bizarre political move. But it is political as it is one person affecting another, and it deals with the superstructure. 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.

t concerns me that people want to see behaviors and thus create people to see them carried out. A bizarre political move. But it is political as it is one person affecting another, and it deals with the superstructure. 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

Human beings are behavior.

Human beings are behavior. — Tom Storm

Don't think it addresses what I said. People are making humans to see behavior. One has to be there for the other to happen.

Why is this a good thing to do to someone else? — schopenhauer1

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

And before you ask me why I’m commenting this: It’s to offer a different perspective since you, once again, seem to be repeating the same old argument. “Life can be harmful so it shouldn’t be enforced”. And since I don’t see anyone making this point on the thread I say it. “Not enforcing it is also harmful, sometimes”

No I’m not trying to stick it to you or “put you in your place” or whatever else you insist I’m doing. Just preventing the thread from becoming and echo chamber.

But can Tom make his own arguments? Now this changes the path this takes. I dont think his comments are necessarily an echo chamber. Its not like you are getting a 1up for adding your idea, I now have to choose to argue your particular line of thought.

And what do you actually mean by "preventing the thread from becoming an echo chamber" anyways? If I am talking to other people, and no one else is "echoing" what I am saying, that would not apply.