I don't think that's enough because life would still remain on Earth. Perhaps evolution has led to this moment? Earth created life capable of destroying all life so that it could finally be free. We must complete our mission.

I don't think that's enough because life would still remain on Earth. Perhaps evolution has led to this moment? Earth created life capable of destroying all life so that it could finally be free. We must complete our mission. — Judaka

Not sure about that cryptic one.. but working on our own species is fine with me as far as this ethic of not creating more suffering. Other animals can do this too when or if another species evolves self-awareness.

I think we have a moral obligation as an intelligent species to end the suffering of the other animals which lack the capacity.

I think we have a moral obligation as an intelligent species to end the suffering of the other animals which lack the capacity. — Judaka

I prioritize ethics to our own species first. Also, due to the fact that animals lack the self-awareness, it may be argued that it isn't our job to do anything on behalf of them. It can only be done as a passive movement, in response to one's own understanding. For example, I wouldn't presume to make others not procreate- simply try to convince them. Unless the animal has capacity to debate and reason with, it isn't our place.

I think irrationality is a bigger problem than life.

Rationality might lead to antinatalism however we have not even got to the stage where logic and rationality dominate discourse.

I don't know if your overall perspective is influenced by a lack of belief in an afterlife.

I think human suffering could be reduced in different ways without total antinatalism and that would be better than the current situation.

We could, but who wants a great project when there's so much pleasure to be had in small projects?

Suppose that the best way to hasten the extinction our species is actually to increase reproduction rates of our species and therefore to generate excitement for pronatal narratives.

There could be some calculus by which increased suffering of a mass of lives in the short term warrants a quickening of the end of life in the long term.

Antinatalists unite! We must pass out pronatal propaganda!

I think human suffering could be reduced in different ways without total antinatalism and that would be better than the current situation. — Andrew4Handel

This is also about uniting.

We could, but who wants a great project when there's so much pleasure to be had in small projects? — Moliere

Why not all of humanity on a project together? Life screws us over..time to start turning the tables against the conspiracy!

There could be some calculus by which increased suffering of a mass of lives in the short term warrants a quickening of the end of life in the long term. — Nils Loc

I think the the fact that the aim is right in sight and not hidden, is important though.. it isn't just that we are ending suffering. It is that we are in it together, understanding the situation and facing it.

Because great projects usually end in disappointment and frustration, whereas small projects are more often successful -- and thereby pleasurable.

Extinction is the final stage of evolution. It will happen one day, but it will be out of our control.

Because great projects usually end in disappointment and frustration, whereas small projects are more often successful -- and thereby pleasurable. — Moliere

Nah. Great project of ending suffering for the future and not imposing life onto others, making that choice for them. Karl Rober Eduard von Hartmann thought it a good idea.

Von Hartmann is a pessimist, for no other view of life recognizes that evil necessarily belongs to existence and can cease only with existence itself. But he is not an unmitigated pessimist.[5] The individual's happiness is indeed unattainable either here and now or hereafter and in the future, but he does not despair of ultimately releasing the Unconscious from its sufferings. He differs from Schopenhauer in making salvation collective by the negation of the will to live depend on a collective social effort and not on individualistic asceticism. The conception of a redemption of the Unconscious also supplies the ultimate basis of von Hartmann's ethics. We must provisionally affirm life and devote ourselves to social evolution, instead of striving after a happiness which is impossible; in so doing we shall find that morality renders life less unhappy than it would otherwise be. Suicide, and all other forms of selfishness, are highly reprehensible. His realism enables him to maintain the reality of Time, and so of the process of the world's redemption.[4]

The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana.[5] — Wikipedia article

Actually, if we take Hartmann's idea seriously, the little projects are hastening the bigger project of discontinuation. The little projects will show how illusory pursuing such things are to happiness, and lead to the bigger problem. So go forth and do your little projects little kitten!

I like life and I'm glad I am alive and the vast majority of humans agree with me, so your argument stops right there.

Who’s going to take care of us when we’re 90 if people stop procreating? Bet you didn’t think of that.

We must complete our mission. — Judaka

We are working hard to do a good job of it. Our homeland planet is heating up; insect populations are crashing; big mammals are going extinct. Soon for us the way of the dodo bird.

Who’s going to take care of us when we’re 90 if people stop procreating? Bet you didn’t think of that. — Noah Te Stroete

Apparently you haven't heard that we will all be looked after by machines of loving grace.

I hope the robot that is going to wipe my ass has a gentle touch.

that is to simply not have future people. — schopenhauer1

Right. You are preaching to the already doomed. As global warming escapes our control, climates become unsuitable and too erratic to support the necessary agricultural output, as insect populations crash and further shrink the food supply (exit the pollinators), as plants find it difficult to adapt, as we wipe out the megafauna (of which we are one), as ocean life dies, we will eventually slip the bonds of mortal existence and pass into the thick layer of geologically preserved plastic.

And then there will be no more humans whinging about the misery of existence. Life will go on in one form or another. Perhaps slime molds will become sentient, and eventually they too will be bitching and carping abut the bad deal of existence -- but that is a ways off and you won't be around to say "I told you so".

And then there will be no more humans whinging about the misery of existence. — Bitter Crank

Are you an antiwhingilist?

I'm not categorically anti-suffering.

I like life and I'm glad I am alive and the vast majority of humans agree with me, so your argument stops right there. — NKBJ

That's nice. A fact is suffering exists. Another fact is that it can be prevented fully. Another fact is that no one need be "deprived" of good, if no one existed to be deprived.

Who’s going to take care of us when we’re 90 if people stop procreating? Bet you didn’t think of that. — Noah Te Stroete

Not a good excuse to use people. That has been a theme of mine actually. People shouldn't be born to be used by society.

We are working hard to do a good job of it. Our homeland planet is heating up; insect populations are crashing; big mammals are going extinct. Soon for us the way of the dodo bird. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. Even if we were in a politically green utopia, suffering still stands, and can be prevented.

I'm not categorically anti-suffering. — Terrapin Station

That's too bad.

Not a good excuse to use people. That has been a theme of mine actually. People shouldn't be born to be used by society. — schopenhauer1

People aren’t used by society. Society is used by people so there is less suffering and more convenience.

Are you getting help for your clinical depression and morbid thoughts? Serious question. I’m not bullying you. I’m genuinely concerned.

Another fact is that for most people the good outweighs the bad in life and they're not going to join your silly movement. So have fun dying alone!

Well, because it's too broad. I'm anti murdering people, anti raping them and various other things, but "suffering" is too general/broad. A lot of things it's applied to by a lot of folks are things that I don't agree are bad, especially not morally bad or bad in a manner that suggests doing any and everything imaginable to avoid it.

Life is the big old monster that is the basis of all else- including suffering. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the first problem. Your argument is based on an objective view on morality. Now, look through any of my comments and you will see I have a rather negative view on this. Here I would like to explain why.

Essentially your logic goes like this- Life is evil because those who alive suffer, and suffering is inherently wrong, therefore, we should all die.

This is the thought process of someone who is suicidal. I can at least provide some evidence for that because it was mine when I was. Of course, you just have to take my word for that, but word is better than nothing I suppose. It could also be said that I'm just referencing my own experience, but I think the context of it even correlating does give me some ground to stand on.

Of course, to clarify, I'm not saying you are suicidal, or even that you are implying everyone should die, this is just my take.

Also to clarify, I don't even think you are inherently wrong. I still struggle with depression sometimes and that is mostly because I can't prove you wrong.

Of course, I can't prove you right either. Your argument hinges on the idea that suffering is inherently wrong. What of the pleasure that can come from suffering? No one likes going to work, but what about the luxuries that a paycheck provides? Family reunions are tiring but the bonds you share and the support network you develop give you comfort. To take it even further, slaves were treated unfairly almost universally across the planet, but much of the infrastructure we rely on was put in place by them. Industrialization most certainly would not have happened without underpaid laborers (many children) that lived in squalor.

Essentially, the work comes first, then the reward. You have to suffer before there can be pleasure. If we had never decided to live together and farm crops despite the many challenges that kind of living situation created, we would never have invented anything. We would be animals.

In my view of morality, suffering is a necessary evil. In yours it is intolerable. In the mind of a racist, it is good if it is happening to who they want it to happen to. In the mind of a masochist, it is good because it makes them feel good. These are all perspectives based on experience. I have seen the good and the bad. You focus on the bad. The racist has only seen the bad. The masochist has learned to love the bad. That last one kind of makes the whole idea of "bad" things fall apart. Can anything inherently be bad? What happens when you disagree on what is bad? When the Christian kingdoms of Europe thought it was bad that they didn't own Jerusalem, and the Muslim Caliphates thought it was good, people died in bloody wars. Is that not suffering? When the East and West couldn't agree on how war torn Europe should distribute wealth, did that not lead to division and suffering?

So in conclusion, you can't be proven wrong, and you can't be proven right. Same for I. To put it in Chess terms, we are in a stalemate. Maybe one of us can still win though. We don't see the whole board, yes? There are things we don't know about the world. I hope we can work together to find a way we can both win. For our lives to have meaning. Let us not make the mistakes of the past. And if God exists, have him forbid we decide to forfeit.

. The great human project can be that which unites us against the principle of procreating more life. This can be our great cause. It is an inversion of the usual trope that life is always good- including the pain. Humanity can finally say, "ENOUGH!" and do something about it, by non-action - that is to simply not have future people. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps instead of cutting the suffering off, we should take it upon ourselves? Tank the suffering so that our children only know pleasure. If we do what needs to be done instead of shying away, we can break through to the other side. If we shy away instead, while our children will never suffer, they will also never have pleasure. They will lose because we never gave them a chance. Now, if they are born with losing odds I see no problem with cutting that off. A child that has a year to live or one born to unfit parents is set to experience an unfair amount of suffering. A healthy child can contribute to the cause of bringing pleasure.

Well, because it's too broad. I'm anti murdering people, anti raping them and various other things, but "suffering" is too general/broad. A lot of things it's applied to by a lot of folks are things that I don't agree are bad, especially not morally bad or bad in a manner that suggests doing any and everything imaginable to avoid it. — Terrapin Station

I think all suffering is bad- be it suffering through adversity (even if it results in making something stronger) or suffering through collateral damage. You probably only find the latter unwarranted.