That is not the issue at hand. The issue is, no one needs to assess anything, if they don't exist. — schopenhauer1

The issue at hand according to whom?

The issue at hand according to whom? — Terrapin Station

Argument of antinatalism- not having children. There is no one who is deprived of anything. There is no one who exists to need...anything actually.

Argument of antinatalism- not having children. There is no one who is deprived of anything. There is no one who exists to need...anything actually. — schopenhauer1

?? The reason that I quoted this: "The quality of life of a yet to be born child is not a totally unknowable, transcendent mystery" is because that's the claim I was addressing. I wasn't addressing any broader claim or argument than that.

some actual person will always experience harm if born (the Benatar asymmetry argument). — schopenhauer1

The same actual person will also experience good--quite possibly much more good than suffering.

In the words of a song from decades ago, "I beg your pardon; I never promised you a rose garden". Life is a mix of good and bad. Everybody knows that.

Antinatalism, like perfect socialism, can become an idée fixe, an obsession of sorts.

Being born means moving into a constantly deprived state. — schopenhauer1

Since we do not live in a system of continual homeostasis, that's true. We are always running short of something. If you stop breathing you will run short of oxygen. If you stop eating you will run short of calories. An idée fixe can lead one to be deprived of philosophical options.

Life presents challenges to overcome and burdens to deal with. — schopenhauer1

Amen to that. Like the fucking grass is causing me to suffer because it is supposed to be kept short. What's wrong with long grass?

Contingent harm is harm that is situational. You simply do not know how much harms there are in life for a certain person. This creates huge collateral damage that was not meant for the child to endure, but he/she must do it nonetheless. — schopenhauer1

As I often say, "You just never know where the next disaster will strike."

We are used as "technology/progress" advancers by a circular-production system. — schopenhauer1

Now here I think you have an excellent idea. Being the pinko commie I am, I naturally see capitalism as an evil system of continual expansion, an all-consuming juggernaut, moloch, gang of ravening thugs, etc. that subverts nature to its imperative for continually larger profits which turns out suffering by the megaton.

Capitalism manages to produce a good share of the suffering to which antinatalists object. When will you become a member of at least the Democratic Socialists of America?

It is too late to be antinatalist. If one were going to nip child-bearing in the bud, one would have to have been actively promoting antinatalism to the immediate descendants of Homo Erectus. The day we became Homo sapiens -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- was the day you should have been out and about preaching antinatalism. Now with 7.2 billion people, it is just too late. It is impossible to convince 7.2 billion people of ANYTHING.

So it's a new word, antinatalism. There is another new word: pro-suffering.

Anti-baby. Pro-death.

Anti-life. Pro-green.

Anti-john, pro-rape.

Anti-sex, pro-abstinence.

Anti-reason, pro-stupidity.

Anti-good, pro-evil.

etc.

I never meant to imply that all antinatalists are all depressed blokes. But, that they are projecting their own concerns about the world onto the rest of humanity, and that this is a form of overgeneralizing, along with black and white thinking to do so.

Antinatalists are trying to save the world form overpopulation. Antinatalism is the key to prevent the complete destruction of mankind and possibly of all life on the globe. Whether through mental-emotional depression, or else due to having the whole thing thought through properly, is a secondary consideration.

This is new. I've never seen such an argument professed by any antinatalist...

I can keep going, but I won't. You get the picture. Antinatalism prevents suffering for all, and forcing people into the world. No ONE loses out by not being born, but EVERYONE loses in some way by being born. My inaction to create someone hurts, literally NO ONE. Someone else's action to birth someone, always creates some harm, and if we believe that being deprived is a negative state, there is constant suffering there too. — schopenhauer1

More blatant overgeneralizing and black-and-white thinking. If you don't like those labels, then here's a new one: Your creating one hellova-straw man here. Besides, children don't live in isolation from their parents. Usually, every child has a parent that looks after them and raises them the best they could. That this sentiment doesn't always turn out as true is another matter.

It is too late to be antinatalist. If one were going to nip child-bearing in the bud, one would have to have been actively promoting antinatalism to the immediate descendants of Homo Erectus. The day we became Homo sapiens -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- was the day you should have been out and about preaching antinatalism. Now with 7.2 billion people, it is just too late. It is impossible to convince 7.2 billion people of ANYTHING. — Bitter Crank

That leads to a thought experiment. Say you stumbled across a time machine in your neighbor's garage, activated it and found yourself among the first modern human beings. You're also aware that like the Avengers, you can't actually change the future, you can only effect a different timeline. So here you are with the first humans, who naturally think of you as the great ancestral spirit come to give them advice. Now's your chance to preach antinatilism, which will be so persuasive that it works.

Do you convince them to not have kids knowing what's in store for the human race? Granted it's different time line but still good likelihood for war, genocide and capitalism. Also, reality tv.

The question is has it been worth it? Now that we're here, we make the best of it. But if you're Captain America, do you skip Peggy Carter and go back to talk the first humans out of procreating, so all the terrible things in history are avoided? Or do you think that hundreds of years of slavery are worth your doppleganger's enjoyment of sipping on some wine while watching The Bachelor?

Do you convince them to not have kids knowing what's in store for the human race? — Marchesk

Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago.

Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago. — T Clark

Okay, but you take some back with you, or bring a doctor to sterilize. With their consent after you've convince them, naturally. No reason to not start things unethically.

Actually, an even better version of the time machine argument is that you don't create a separate time line unless you do time travel and step on a prehistoric butterfly. If you do, then you've automatically duplicated humanity's sufferring (on average - history might go a bit differently).

So would you create another world of human history?

Okay, but you take some back with you, or bring a doctor to sterilize. With their consent after you've convince them, naturally. No reason to not start things unethically. — Marchesk

I wasn't really quibbling with your thought experiment. It's just that, when I read it, it struck me that the whole anti-natalist argument is a product of our modern technological world.

That's a good point. I guess our great-great-great-great grandparents could have just abstained? But that would have increased their own suffering.

It is too late to be antinatalist. If one were going to nip child-bearing in the bud, one would have to have been actively promoting antinatalism to the immediate descendants of Homo Erectus. The day we became Homo sapiens -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- was the day you should have been out and about preaching antinatalism. Now with 7.2 billion people, it is just too late. It is impossible to convince 7.2 billion people of ANYTHING. — Bitter Crank

Don't blame me. It's hard to be there 200000 years back when you were born only 65 years ago.

Gimme a time machine and I'll do it in a flash.

So here you are with the first humans, who naturally think of you as the great ancestral spirit come to give them advice. — Marchesk

Descental spirit. Not ancestral. Otherwise, correct.

Do you convince them to not have kids knowing what's in store for the human race?
— Marchesk

Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago. — T Clark

Okay, no pills. But maybe there were plenty of sheep and ducks in the fields and rivers.

I wasn't really quibbling with your thought experiment. It's just that, when I read it, it struck me that the whole anti-natalist argument is a product of our modern technological world. — T Clark

Please see my previous post of geese and sheep.

Descental spirit. Not ancestral. Otherwise, correct. — god must be atheist

Well, the primitive human view of time travel is such that they call it "ancestral", since you're from an alternate timeline, and therefore cannot be their descendant, particularly after you convince them to use birth control.

Well, there you go. (Hehe.) So... how is your species working out?

I was asked in several occasions in the past by very serious people which planet I had come from.

I'm not an antinatalist, so I wouldn't want them to not have children. Actually Homo sapiens did very well for the first 190,000 years -- really an excellent record of sustainable life-style and resource conservation. Some say that our first really BIG MISTAKE was agriculture. So, let's go back just 10,000 or 12,000 years and tell them that raising their own food will lead to nothing good, and that in time (all too soon) one thing will lead to another and they'll wish they had never been born.

So we say, "Just stick with the nuts, berries, roots, herbs, and roast meat. It's keeping you healthy, strong, tall, and sexy. So just keep on keeping on. Forget about making bricks, planting corn, and domesticating horses. The dog is all you need, really. We will return every 1000 years to make sure that you don't get in over your heads and go all modern. If you do go all modern on us, we will commit suicide by lining you all up and shooting you."

Now here I think you have an excellent idea. Being the pinko commie I am, I naturally see capitalism as an evil system of continual expansion, an all-consuming juggernaut, moloch, gang of ravening thugs, etc. that subverts nature to its imperative for continually larger profits which turns out suffering by the megaton.

Capitalism manages to produce a good share of the suffering to which antinatalists object. When will you become a member of at least the Democratic Socialists of America? — Bitter Crank

Indeed, we are ignorant of the millions of ideas that some engineer-types thought of. Their ideas which satisfied their intellectual curiosity.. created millions of boring jobs for others who are less creative in the technology world.. We are mostly ignorant of the very outputs we consume from these engineers, we live an existence where we know we know when we don't like doing a task, but have to do it anyways (unlike other animals), and no there is no solution, including communism for the problem of work, and the existentially configured human who must deal with it. We have to find motivation. Other animals don't. We have to find meaning. Other animals don't. We are simply minutia-mongers pretending there's meaning in the mongering.

Why I became an antinatalist basically went like this:

1- Do I know my children would enjoy their life and find it worthwhile? No.
2- Would I mind if someone used any resource of mine (money, time, etc) without my consent to do something HE/SHE believes is worthwhile with it? Yes.

Therefore from 1 and 2, I should not have children as that would be risking someone else's resources for an investment I BELIEVE is worthwhile without their consent.

I think you misunderstand the argument of antinatalism. It's not that magic ghost babies are saved from harm by not having them. it's a lot simpler. The basic principle is: it is wrong to act in a way that WILL risk harming someone in the future (for no good reason). Hiding a bear trap in an empty public park isn't bad because it harms magical non existent entities as you put them, it's bad because there is a chance it WILL harm someone. Even though that someone isn't there yet

1- Do I know my children would enjoy their life and find it worthwhile? No. — khaled

But, how is that sentiment for you to decide?

2- Would I mind if someone used any resource of mine (money, time, etc) without my consent to do something HE/SHE believes is worthwhile with it? Yes. — khaled

This is wallowsome. How is that a bad thing?

The basic principle is: it is wrong to act in a way that WILL risk harming someone in the future (for no good reason). — khaled

How does this make sense if you can only speak for yourself?

it is wrong to act in a way that WILL risk harming someone in the future (for no good reason) — khaled

A good reason in my opinion is that the balance is on the enjoyment/pleasure side for most people.

Irrespective of its qualities of legitimacy, validity or reasonableness, anti-Natalism, held firmly, has a distinct reproductive disadvantage against the contrary position. Just as I would not argue with a Shaker on their convictions, I see no reason to try to dissuade or critically assess the position anyone who holds the anti-Natalist position. A movement born to die speaks to its relevance and how much time it bears contemplating.

I might talk with them about how they arrived at their conviction because people are interesting and an interesting life means talking to interesting people.

“But how is this sentiment for you to decide?”

???? Sentiment? What sentiment? I’m just making a statement of fact. Do I know my kids would not be miserable wretches despite my best efforts? No and neither do you. So this establishes that bringing someone into existence is a risk.

“This is wallowsome, how is that a bad thing?”

You wouldn’t mind if I stole your bank account to make an investment I think is worthwhile without consulting you? And we’re talking big investment here, like 90% of your life’s savings or something. I highly doubt you wouldn’t. This is just a metaphor for birth. You force someone to live for 80 years with very high emotional consequences on both parties if they try to commit suicide early while risking they have a miserable life. All of this for no good reason.

“How does this make sense if you only speak for yourself?”

So you don’t agree with the sentiment that’s it’s wrong to commit acts that will harm people in the future for no good reason? So it’s not wrong for me to poison your food for example?

That is not a good reason. Because I don’t care how small the chances of being miserable are (although I don’t think they’re that low) it’s still not a good reason to take a risk FOR someone else when they will pay the consequences. If you don’t agree then you wouldn’t mind someone stealing your bank account to invest most of your savings in a certain business without your consent just because “most people who have invested in this business have found it worthwhile”.

Also do you have kids? If so why don’t you have more? Why don’t you have as many as you can possibly provide for? Why don’t you work harder just to be able to provide for more kids? Because after all it is apparently your responsibility to take risks with other people’s lives as long as most people experience a positive balance of pleasure/pain.