No, one doesn't suffer because of being born, it isn't possible to suffer without being born, and it may not be possible to be born and not suffer -- but this still doesn't mean that birth itself causes suffering. Other stuff causes suffering, you know that.

People don't get over things because they die, lol. See, you have to just believe that everyone really hates life, and wants to die, regardless of what they say, and how they act. You just have to ignore that, and think they're lying or delusional. You're a True Believer. — Wosret

So even in your estimation of things (which is apparently weighing probabilities of possible future people's self-reported evaluations of life), the fact that collateral damage of the occasional pessimist, means that it is ok to then go ahead and have children? So, while 80+ years (if not suicide or premature death) of a person not desiring to be born is the cost of those who report they wanted to be born? Preventing birth has no effect on anyone while having a child will affect someone. It affects:
1.) The "minority" actual pessimists who reflect on life and value it as a not great by either seeing the negative of the the harms of life or the instrumentality/emptiness of our very own pursuits
2.) Those who value life as mediocre/good/great, but are yet still harmed by the events of life, contingencies of life, and the necessities of sustaining one's life.

The crux of your argument is on the idea of this self-report evaluation vs. the self-reported (or objective standards of) harm. Benatar laid out a good start to the idea that people can self-report all sorts of positive stories after an event that actually distorts the negative nature of what was happening to them in the moment of the event. What that means is, to get by, we often distort, adjust, etc. We live in a non-ideal world (in either a subjective or objective sense) and a world that is some grade of mediocrity for most people. We adjust ourselves to non-ideal circumstances, and have all sorts of sociological and psychological mechanisms to "get us through". Yes, we have the ability to recover from negative events. Yes, some people do not see the instrumentality of existence (staying on the surface of things), but most have some some moments of this understanding, even if briefly, before going back to the surface.

All this harm, the emptiness behind pursuits that we sometimes catch a glimpse of (in our more "depressed moods" as you would probably characterize it), does not affect an empty set (meaning a possibility that has not manifested to actual- i.e. a possible person that is not actualized). However, once you include a number in that empty set, whatever number ends up in that bracket, is now subject to the set's conditions. This is not to mention that not only do the very conditions of life (and its non-ideal nature) affect people, but people are not necessarily born with the same set of coping or survival tools. Brain chemistry can vary widely, even in the same family. Also, the contingencies of events create memories and pathways in the brain that make every human have every-so-unique spins on negative events such that, though we can empathize somewhat, the individualized nature of each individual makes it such that it is hard to say how the harm affects people differently. This goes back to our distorting nature. Self-reports can say one thing but the phenomenal/internal/introspective understanding of a phenomena can be quite different and varied for people (even articulating it to people in detail cannot necessarily get the listener to understand the internalized experience). How accurate are these reports? Do psychologists and social scientists do various experiments matching the self-reports to other reports that get at ideas of harm without directly asking the question "Do you think life is good overall?".

Even if people do somehow pass all tests that indicate "yep, they think life is good despite the harm", perhaps antinatalists are just showing the other side of the argument. Perhaps they are saying that all this harm does not add up and that perhaps, to entertain the notion that due to differences in brain chemistry, due to self-distortions, due to lack of perspective, that we should not make a hasty conclusion for another individual who may be
1) The actual pessimist as described above
2) Those who value life as mediocre/good/great but are still harmed by life

That last sentence is false. They both make the mistake of deciding the worth of the life of everyone, and everyone yet to be, rather than recognising that people have some say in the matter. They are both guilty of a sweeping generalisation. — Sapientia

But the antinatalist decides the worth of the life of no one, since you cannot decide the worth of the life of someone who isn't born (i.e. doesn't exist).

Not if you're including passing moments and phases. If we all strongly and consistently wanted never to have been born, then that would change things, yes. — Sapientia

Okay, so is there some amount of people who have to not feel that way for birth to be justified? What is that amount?

By having a child, one is granting them the opportunity to experience worthwhile things. — Sapientia

But it isn't necessary that people experience worthwhile things.

And, given that most people, throughout multiple generations, would say that they are glad to be alive, and that they do not regret being born, there is reason to believe that the yet-to-be-born stand a good chance of reaping the rewards and arriving at the same conclusion. — Sapientia

You do not speak for the yet to be born.

rather than recognising that people have some say in the matter — Sapientia

The yet to be born have no say in the matter.

...but just having everyone die, or stop being born to fix the problem is like pulling out all of your teeth to prevent cavities. — Wosret

Yeh, or throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You're just using "cause" in a strained way. Like saying the big bang is the cause of suffering. — Wosret

Indeed. This has already been pointed out to him, yet he persists.

But the antinatalist decides the worth of the life of no one, since you cannot decide the worth of the life of someone who isn't born (i.e. doesn't exist). — The Great Whatever

That conclusion is false and doesn't follow. Obviously, like I said, they decide the worth of life for everyone alive, and they also decide what the worth of life would be for everyone of a possible future generation, all else being equal.

Okay, so is there some amount of people who have to not feel that way for birth to be justified? What is that amount? — The Great Whatever

42.

But it isn't necessary that people experience worthwhile things. — Thorongil

I know. I've already said that. It doesn't need to be. I don't know why you keep bringing up these irrelevancies about necessity.

You do not speak for the yet to be born. — Thorongil

The yet to be born have no say in the matter. — Thorongil

I know. I don't make out that it's this overblown travesty of justice. The living have a say in the matter, and we can base our judgement about bringing people into this world on the assessment of those already in it.

That conclusion is false and doesn't follow. Obviously, like I said, they decide the worth of life for everyone alive, and they also decide what the worth of life would be for everyone of a possible future generation, all else being equal. — Sapientia

No, they don't. They decide nothing for anyone, since there is no person they are making the decision for (the unborn are not people, i.e. do not exist). On the other hand the natalist does make that decision for a real person who is born. The opinions they have on the worth of the lives of living people have nothing to do with antinatalism, which is abut procreation (it's in the name). Your other comment evidences a kind of confusion -- that a 'possible future generation' is somehow an actual generation of people the worth of whose lives can be decided. Again, I reiterate, possible future generations of people do not exist, and so nothing can be decided on their behalf.

Please don't respond to this with just another 'nope,' it bewilders me how you can put so much text on a page w/o making a point.

You're simply wrong.

Firstly, it's not true that the opinions that anti-natalists have on the worth of the lives of living people has nothing to do with antinatalism, because that is used by them as a premise in their argument.

Secondly, the only confusion here is your own, evidenced by your misinterpretation of, and mistaken assumptions about, my claim.

You have very clearly, time and again, either claimed or implied that the life of someone brought into this world would not be worth living. You have claimed, time and again, that this is because of the amount of suffering that they would experience. And you have stated your conclusion, time and again, that it would therefore be better not to bring people into this world.

I am in no way suggesting that possible people are actual people. You just apparently cannot grasp the meaning of a statement in the conditional mood, even though you say you're a linguist.

Don't compare your life to others, and want more than most people have. Maybe most people are getting too much as it is. — Wosret

There are some expectations that just cannot be tamed, though. When you drive by a graveyard and suddenly get that sinking feeling that, yeah, you'll be there one day. Or watching a reality television show and then actually going out in reality and seeing how crappy it is. Or when you are all excited for your marathon only to break your leg the night before. The world is unable to provide for the expectations of the human psyche.

Life isn't fair, and it's easy to say this when things are going alright for you but as soon as things take a turn for the worse, it is you who gets the full-frontal assault and to say that this is not a bad thing is to be masochistic and delusional.

There's a reason why people need entertainment; it's a distraction from their lives. Otherwise we'd be bored out of our minds.

I know. I've already said that. It doesn't need to be. I don't know why you keep bringing up these irrelevancies about necessity. — Sapientia

Because you're using them as reasons for having children? What, if not this, are you trying to say?

I can't relate to any of that. My job is roofing, and people often tell me I'm crazy for the recklessness of what I do. Maybe I will fall off someday, that will suck. I usually tell people that I'm an optimist, if I fall off then half way down I'll be all like "well, so far it's been alright, the rest should be fine". I'm only the least bit worried at about three stories up. One story I can land a jump from (I've done it), two stories I may hurt myself, three stories could be fatal. Double the distance of the fall, quadruple the force. I really never think about falling though, and am not really the least big scared, I'm just used to it. That's how I am about death in general, I'll worry about it when it's imminent.

Fairness doesn't apply to life itself, it's an evaluation of judgment, and behavior, not the world. The world is neither fair or unfair, people are. I don't experience such an assault, and the person torturing themselves with negativity, threats that aren't imminent, and unreasonable expectations is less masochistic than the person that takes everything in stride? Yesterday buddy at work told me that he missed working with me, I'm always so upbeat and happy. I said that there's enough bullshit and negativity in the world for me to be adding to it. I like to keep things light and avoid unnecessary stress.

I don't particularly enjoy very much, really, at least not a whole lot more than anything else. I am generally bored, and unengaged, with distractions, or doing absolutely nothing. It's why meditating, waiting places, doing exercises and things don't really bore me more than most things do. I think that music is probably my favorite thing, and always increases my vitality. I really don't think that it would be all that difficult to live without modern distractions though, they aren't all that great to me. I would miss music, but that's about it.

Say it with me, children: you can't make a decision on behalf of non-existent people. So if you are in no way suggesting they are actual people, you have no point to make, since the anti-natalist is not making any sweeping decisions on behalf of anyone on the worth of their lives.

They both make the mistake of deciding the worth of the life of everyone, and everyone yet to be, rather than recognising that people have some say in the matter. — Sapientia

Recall this: it is nonsense to require that unborn, i.e. nonexistent people, could, as an alternative, be given 'some say' in the matter. Nonexistent people can't be given 'some say' in anything, because they do not exist.

Because you're using them as reasons for having children? What, if not this, are you trying to say? — Thorongil

I'm saying that it can be worthwhile to have children because there are things in life that are worthwhile, and I'm further saying that there are, and have been, and probably will be, some cases in which it is worthwhile.

I'm not saying that it's necessary to have children, nor that it's necessarily worthwhile, nor that it's necessary for people to experience worthwhile things.

Is that clear enough for you?

I don't think there's any getting through to @The Great Whatever. He seems intent on missing the point and sticking to an uncharitable misinterpretation of what I've said, despite my repeated clarifications.

Preventing birth has no effect on anyone[...] — schopenhauer1

How out of touch with reality does one have to be to say that and mean it?

This might be irrelevant but it seems to me that the arguments that are the most convincing yet startling get the greatest amount of ridicule.

I agree: it does seem that way to you.

Carry on with the ridicule, then.

How out of touch with reality does one have to be to say that and mean it? — Sapientia

So the statement: "Preventing birth has no effect (or affect) on anyone" is being out of touch with reality? Since when does holding that view lead to such absurd, out of touch reactions?

It's actually quite simple logic- so simple perhaps it sounds absurd? I don't know.. But let me break it down:
1) There is the possibility of birth (as long as the ability for procreation exists)
2) By preventing birth/not having kids/not procreating/not doing something that leads to the act of procreating, you are LITERALLY not effecting/affecting any ONE because there is a state affairs where no actual person was born (but with the possibility that it could happen) which will have its life effected/affected
3) HOWEVER, by not preventing birth/by having kids/by procreating/ by doing something that leads to the act of procreating, you are now LITERALLY creating a state of affairs where an actual person now exists (i.e. now, the possibility has become an actuality) which will now have its life effected/affected.
4) Now that it is born, this life can have negative affects/effects happen to him/her, you see. This was "enabled" "caused" or whatever term you want to use by its actual birth. Being that there are no charmed lives, and there are many unknowns, certainly by not preventing birth, you are effecting/affecting someone (with experiences of the negative). However, by not having kids, there is no one born to be affected, you see. There is no one born to care whether it did not experience positive things even.

All the empirical evidence I gave above can explain why the simple retort (in mocking childish tone): "But people experience positive things and most people say they like life.. nah nah nah poo poo" is not so open-and-shut (or wholly valid rather). I will just tell you to see my previous post and respond to some of the actual reasoning I gave for why it is not so simple as going off people's self-reports.

So the statement: "Preventing birth has no effect (or affect) on anyone" is being out of touch with reality? Since when does holding that view lead to such absurd, out of touch reactions? — schopenhauer1

Ok, shall we put it to the test? We could go out, put it to people, and gather feedback, but the results would predicably be in my favour, i.e. it's effect (or affect) would be to provoke a negative reaction. Most people will find it objectionable or absurd. Like something from a disturbing piece of fiction.

Ok, shall we put it to the test? We could go out, put it to people, and gather feedback, but the results would predicably be in my favour, i.e. it's effect (or affect) would be to provoke a negative reaction. Most people will find it objectionable or absurd. Like something from a disturbing piece of fiction. — Sapientia

Use the short version or the longer version, I don't care.

I don't get how you can acknowledge that the act of intentionally having a child affects people - pessimists and those who value life, you say; but not acknowledge that the act of intentionally preventing child birth - a much more dramatic act if adopted on a large enough scale - also affects people.

If by saying that no one is affected, you mean only to refer to the absence of a baby - a potential prevented from being actualised, which, it is of course true, cannot be affected - then why speak of the affect on others in the former case, but not the latter? That wouldn't be applying the same standard for some unknown and seemingly unjustified reason, i.e. special pleading.

Perhaps I've misunderstood.

I don't get how you can acknowledge that the act of intentionally having a child affects people - pessimists and those who value life; but not acknowledge that the act of intentionally preventing child birth - a much more dramatic act if adopted on a large enough scale - also affects people. — Sapientia

So now you know what I meant from my longer version explained above..

If by saying that no one is affected, you mean only to refer to the absence of a baby - a potential prevented from being actualised, which, it is of course true, cannot be affected - then why speak of the affect on others in the former case, but not the latter?
That wouldn't be applying the same standard for some unknown and seemingly unjustified reason, i.e. special pleading. — Sapientia

The affect of what on others? Being born causes there to be an affect on the person being actualized. If no one is born, no actual person can be affected (though the possibility is there). We are simply discussing a life that may or may not be affected (by negative events).

Is that clear enough for you? — Sapientia

It appears you cede my point about necessity. That's good, but you're still stuck arrogating to yourself the ability to speak on behalf of the non-existent, an ability neither you nor anyone else possesses.

The affect of what on others? Being born causes there to be an affect on the person being actualized. If no one is born, no actual person can be affected (though the possibility is there). We are simply discussing a life that may or may not be affected (by negative events). — schopenhauer1

I was speaking about the affect that preventing birth has on people, including other people, as opposed to a single person: the person-in-question, who is merely hypothetical, and doesn't actually exist if procreation didn't occur. I was referring to this:

It affects:
1.) The "minority" actual pessimists who reflect on life and value it as a not great by either seeing the negative of the the harms of life or the instrumentality/emptiness of our very own pursuits
2.) Those who value life as mediocre/good/great, but are yet still harmed by the events of life, contingencies of life, and the necessities of sustaining one's life. — schopenhauer1

Were you just saying that it'll affect the child, whether it's a pessimist as described in "1.)" or someone who values life as described in "2.)"?

It appears you cede my point about necessity. — Thorongil

Of course I do. I never denied it. I clearly acknowledged it. I merely objected to it's lack of relevance.

That's good, but you're still stuck arrogating to yourself the ability to speak on behalf of the non-existent, an ability neither you nor anyone else possesses. — Thorongil

That's not true. I speak on behalf of the non-existent no more than you do. Being non-existent, strictly speaking, they don't get a say in the matter, nor are they entitled to one, nor are they missing out or being done an injustice. That wouldn't make sense. The decision is entirely up to the living. Pointing out that a child might well live a worthwhile life is not to speak on behalf of that child - whether this child actually exists or exists only in the mind of the would-be parents. There comes a point in life when someone can judge for themselves whether or not life is worth living, and they can take matters into their own hands. That's when they get a say in the matter, and your position, in practice, entails the removal of this potential.

If anyone is speaking on behalf of the non-existent, it's anti-natalists or whatever you want to call yourself. But I don't think that you do, strictly speaking. What you do do, however, is make a judgement which can be expressed in the conditional mood. For example, by saying that if someone existed, then their life would not be worth living. @The Great Whatever's error is to object that this is counter to what is factual, because this someone doesn't actually exist. Well, durr,
you don't say?

Were you just saying that it'll affect the child, whether it's a pessimist as described in "1.)" or someone who values life as described in "2.)"? — Sapientia

I was saying that it affects both types of people who are born.