Just think guys, if you made babies you could teach them your bullshit, and they'd probably believe you because they wouldn't know any better! :D

BC, it is great that your personal experience of life is adequate enough for you to say that you feel as though life is decent. However, I think it would naive to say that there is not a lot of suffering (and yes, I mean suffering, not little whiny bitching about having to fill up your gas tank), and I also think that it would be ignorant and wasteful to say that this reality of suffering is completely irrelevant to the discussion of birth.

Having children is forcing them to experience suffering, whether you like to admit this or not. Having children is a risk-taking act that impacts someone else without their consent.

To all disagreeing, here is an analogy: say there are ten brownie cupcakes to choose from. You are not particularly hungry nor are you craving a cupcake, but let's say neither do you have diabetes and you wouldn't mind having a cupcake. There is a catch, though. One or two of the ten cupcakes are not fully cooked, and will thus food poison you, causing you to experience frequent visits to the bathroom and general discomfort.

Now, is it worth the risk? Is the little bit of enjoyment you derive from the cupcake really worth the risk of getting explosive diarrhea?

Perhaps the stakes aren't high enough. What if now, instead of choosing a cupcake for yourself, you had to choose a cupcake for someone else, say, your spouse, or a friend or relative. What about now? Would you choose a cupcake for them?

This is essentially what is involved in the act of child birth, except the stakes are far higher and the probabilities are skewed so far that there really isn't any way to guarantee that someone isn't going to come out fucked up, or live a fucked up life. It's easy to focus on how great someone's life might be, or how much meaning they may derive during certain aspects of their life, and forget about the drudgery, bullshit, and suffering that pervades the world we live in. It's not fun nor comfortable to look at this picture but it does no good to ignore it either.

Antinatalism is often paired with depression but it seems like this is only the case because those who are unable to see the obviousness of this position are typically the ones who have their heads in the clouds. The depression a person may have has no relevance to the arguments they present; I am not a hopeless depressive, I just make sufficient observations around me that lead me to a position that many would consider to be depressive.

But wait, you got your beliefs from...

"Blah blah from my life experience and thinking" pffffffHAHAHAA

Lol, but I'm special, and uniquely immune to such influences.

I'm also curious why antinatalism is the go to response here. Is it necessarily impossible to improve the world at some point in the future, such that the balance of probability for an individual born skews to a good, rather than a poor existence? Or is antinatalism being proposed as a stop-gap measure until such a time? I.e. Are antinatalists here saying that existence necessarily entails suffering (at least in this world)? Also, do antinatalists here have any arguments for/against implementing political measures to enforce their moral principles?

Is it necessarily impossible to improve the world at some point in the future, such that the balance of probability for an individual born skews to a good, rather than a poor existence? — Sinderion

I'm not against improving the human condition. I won't deny that smallpox has been eradicated, for example. But neither will I deny that it is a far-fetched idea that we will ever solve the problem of suffering in general, or existential identity/boredom, or the ever-increasing and threatening entropy of the universe which will, if all of physics is to be understood, result in the eventual destruction of these improvements of the human condition.

Are antinatalists here saying that existence necessarily entails suffering (at least in this world)? — Sinderion

A lot of us will contend that existence by structural necessity entails suffering. For example, to be alive means to have frustrated preferences. Sometimes these preferences actually get us emotionally distressed, and are often caused by other people. Simply existing can be ethically problematic, it seems, as people inevitably have different opinions.

Also, do antinatalists here have any arguments for/against implementing political measures to enforce their moral principles? — Sinderion

I've argued elsewhere that above all else, liberty is to be understood as the highest of moral and political goods. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to pat you on the back for having a child, I just know that the state hasn't made it illegal (yet?) to exercise your liberty to have a child. Until then, there is absolutely nothing I am allowed to do that permanently affects you (I am not allowed to sterilize the water, for example)

Also, I'm not dogmatic in my philosophical positions: if someone has a good argument against antinatalism, I'll change my mind.

I'm just waiting for the experience machines to come along and resolve the problem of suffering.

On a more serious note, I would likely argue that (human) suffering isn't sufficient grounds to argue for (human) antinatalism, in an absolute form (I.e. The right thing for everyone is necessarily and always not to procreate), because it's an inherently anthropocentric view that leaves out far too much for me to subscribe to it. No one aside from Bittercrank, I believe, brought up non-human factors into the equation. I think we have strong moral duties towards other things, animals being the most obvious, and I think AI would be a close hypothetical relative. I think the balance of probabilities right now regarding our treatment of animals in general heavily skews to the possibility that we are treating them extremely poorly, and (at least in the current state of affairs) there are far too many humans on this planet.

On the other hand, I don't see it as being a necessary truth that we will always be in this state of affairs, and particularly after an extended period of reduced birthing, it would be possible to conceive of a state of affairs where we would be obliged to continue our existence, in order to benefit remaining human and animal/AI life. Goes without saying, this position makes a LOT of assumptions about our possible relationship towards other beings and that it's possible to even bring about a situation where we can ensure our descendants fulfil their putative moral obligations. It also begs the question of what our duties towards other beings entail, and whether these would even require our existence.

However, if we assume that somehow, we can bring about an antinatalist state of affairs, I doubt it's a stretch to bring about a state of affairs where humans act in a morally respectful manner towards other possible forms of life. Even given the poverty of the human condition, that would not negate the moral duty we would have towards other forms of life; in fact, given that human life (if I've understood antinatalists correctly) tends towards necessary suffering through existence, then it would follow that the only reason for human existence to begin with would be to improve the life of other living things.

Tl;dr: even if humans suck and human life sucks, we still need to stick around to facilitate the best possible lives for animals. In fact, that's probably the only reason why we're even needed around, if antinatalists are right about human existence.

PS: Also, by no means does facilitating a good life for animals necessarily entail facilitating a natural one.

My own responses to this:

1) I think it's a non-trivial question whether it is possible for life to be fundamentally different from how it is now, that is, without being something other than life. It may be that there is something wrong with the structure of life or the world as such, such that there is no way to improve it in a fundamental way, as if it were a matter of stepping out of a hailstorm and into a house. Life could be better or worse, sure, and I'd rather be wealthy and healthy than poor and miserable -- but even the wealthiest and healthiest are guaranteed to be miserable at many points, and I think probably far more even than people are willing to admit (no one who goes on about how their life is worth living or the goods outweighs the bads wants us to actually watch them at every moment to see if their claim holds water). This is basically Schopenhauer's position, and in advocating what is essentially the destruction of the world, he is calling for 'Nothing,' but a relative Nothing, that is, what is Nothing to us, because all we know is life and its miseries. If such a radical solution or transformation were possible, I don't think philosophy has much of anything to say about it, though religion might. I myself favor a kind of Gnostic Christianity in this respect, and metaphorically the world is cast as a kind of prison or labor camp.

2) I don't think any laws should be implemented, because generally going from 'I want X to be the case' to 'there ought to be legislation mandating that X is the case' is fallacious. Laws don't have any real control over the way the world goes -- we can't legislate anything that's a real problem, like hunger, out of existence, it doesn't work that way. There's little correlation in my view between who runs a government or how and what goes on in the relam of the governed. Put simply, governments are not only impotent to stop such problems, but would likely, if we're talking about large-scale coercive measures to stop people from breeding, simply exacerbate and multiply human suffering. Even the question of whether the anti-natalist position entails some sort of legislation arises from a very fundamental delusion, that governments have a sort of world-shaping power by which they can through legislative intent change very basic features about the world.

Also, to suggest that a real parade of suffering ought to be continued indefinitely in service of a fantasy that one day it will end is absurd.

I mean suffering, not little whiny bitching about having to fill up your gas tank) — darthbarracuda

For suffering I was thinking of something considerably worse than spoiled cupcakes or bitchy tasks like filling up one's gas tank. I was thinking of cases known to me among real people I know (knew) and love (loved). Some of these I've suffered too.

metastatic cancers in several people, producing death, but not before producing all the suffering of function destroying cancers
AIDS - people with shingles in their anuses, (immensely painful), tumors, nausea, diarrhea almost all the time, wasting syndrome, running sores, etc.
shattered bones, scraped flesh, ripped muscles (that from a bad bicycle accident)
concussions with significant loss of function among previous very intellectually gifted persons
heart disease, strokes, Crone's disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimers, blindness, cysts in the brain stem
burn victims, gunshot victims, auto accident victims
polio (resulting in partial paralysis), hepatitis, influenza, staph infections
manic depression, psychosis, schizophrenia, catatonic depression, OCD, etc.

That's the kinds of suffering I'm weighing here as a possible cost of being born. What sort of pleasures and satisfactions could possibly balance out all that?

Love, intellectual discovery, great sex (not once, but over and over again for years) laughter, religious ecstasy, art, film, opera (often about suffering -- like Madam Butterfly from the Met today), great books, wonderful bicycle rides, swimming in the ocean and almost drowning, beach combing, laying in the warm sun, desires both met and unfulfilled, wonderful food, like the lamb chops at Figlios (they stopped making them, so life is a bit less worth living), the scallops and clam chowder at Legal Seafood, the fried clams at the little fly-spec shop in Mattapan--Simco's on the Bridge, chocolate, blueberry pie, etc.) massage, beautiful handsome men (or for you, maybe, beautiful women), dogs, squirrels...

It's a long list--both suffering and joys. Each of them is thick, deep, rich--and in the case of suffering, harrowing; in the case of joys, heavenly.

The sufferers I have known never said that they wish they had not been born. Why not? Because they had lived enough (joys and sufferings both) to see for themselves that life is worthwhile.

If I may make a modest suggestion, why don't you stop this pointless philosophical sniveling about the hardness of life (life is hard, sure enough) and move on to the greatest possible enjoyment of the life you have. Do good. That is one of the satisfactions there is. Love. Be loved. Feast and feed others. Give great sex. Make music, or share it. Make art, or share it. Laugh. Tell good jokes (jokes that make people laugh.) Scratch an old dog's ears--hell, scratch the whole body -- the dog will be forever grateful. Go for a swim, go for a bike ride, do a workout at the gym -- and enjoy it.

Have you -- will you-- suffer? Oh, almost certainly. When it comes, endure it with grace.

I'm a vegan, but I don't think that we are here to save the world. Either through shepherding the ignorant miserable masses of people, or animals. Most of the time, I think it's best to just mind your own business, stay out of the way, and worry about yourself.

Who knows what people would think watching me in every second, I'm not Buddha, or something, claiming to have a special emotional disposition, or some kind of super power, or that people really should be like me. All that matters is my own evaluation. Everyone's keeps up some level of appearance, everyone lies, paints this better than they are, themselves better than they are, and everything involved with them as more impressive and significant. People often also do the exact opposite of that, depending on how they want to make you feel, and their distrust in your ability to react, and feel the ways they want you to about things.

I don't think the point of life is to save the world but I think we have a moral obligation towards improving the lives of other beings. What improving those lives entails is another matter altogether.

Give some examples and I might be more prone to agree

Interesting contributions from all here.

I don't have too much to add other than the counter-intuitive observation that, contrary to the view that the finiteness of life renders all things meaningless, it is precisely its finitude that opens us up to a world of value and significance. A life without limitations would be even more pointless than one in which our eventual death serves as a boundary spurring us to take a stand on things, to decide what's significant and what's not, etc.

This close proximity to death, to me (as someone who over the past 3 years has had serious health scares, had one close young friend die suddenly and another commit suicide) at least, explains why some people who've had a brush with death or some other traumatic experience oftentimes come out of it with a new appreciation for even the 'simple' things in life, many of which BC outlined above. At the very least I can say that life is not boring - more a vacillation between joy and terror for those 'awake' to the world and hyper-conscious....but definitely not boring.

And someone else mentioned frustrated desires as part of the inevitable psychological pain associated with living in addition to the obvious physical pain, but being ensnared to the overwhelming social pressure to conform can be overcome. In my opinion this is precisely what can, or may, facilitate a deep shift in our outlook on life, from utter despair to a sense of thankfulness for even the seemingly mundane and trivial. Generally speaking, for thoughtful people - like the antinatalists here perhaps - chasing after the latest consumer goods, doing whatever you have to do to gain social standing amongst people you can't really relate to, and other things of that nature would indeed eventually result in something akin to a living hell.

So while I don't consider myself an 'existentialist' by any stretch, I do agree with the basic idea (if I understand it correctly) that there could be a strong relation between an anticipation of my death and an 'inner' call to freedom from those 'external' forces imposing their will and dictating how we live, what we value, etc. Could there be some sort wider social awakening? Some romanticized cultural upheaval or yearning for authenticity? I don't know, but I do think that making a positive impact on the lives of others is probably the best feeling one can have, and that indicates, yet again to me, that this universe is not all horrible, that somehow the microcosm of humanity contains an incredible amount of nobility and compassion that must somehow already be contained in the larger cosmos. It's almost a performative contradiction when antinatalists argue for the ending of life on moral or ethical grounds.

I would reiterate that contingencies of life may change my view tomorrow (if something horrible happened to one of my boys, for example) and draw me into the antinatalist camp, but I can also envision a life well-lived whose end results in a joyous celebration. I'm not at all against suicide either in particular situations where one feels they are in too much pain or have nothing left to offer this world in any way. I agree with Nietzsche in this, that we should not cling to life when it's no longer desirable or beneficial to us or anyone else. Having said that I would not want any antinatalists here (or elsewhere) to kill themselves but instead to rethink and experience things anew, from a different perspective of awe and wonder.

Those are the final musings of what will be considered my naïve and/or masochistic point of view. Like BC said (or implied), again perhaps paradoxically, those who've suffered the most are often the least likely to turn antinatalist. A disputable position no doubt, but borne out through my experience - which is a million times more powerful than any argument which only speaks to my intellect.

Having children is forcing them to experience suffering, whether you like to admit this or not. — darthbarracuda

Yes, it's also forcing them to experience joy and many other things. But if this forcing is problematic, it's not problematic enough to warrant the purposeful extinction of humanity, or even all forms of life, as you would have it. That is ridiculously extreme. (Which better explains the ridicule than the explanation that you proposed. It's a common reaction to absurdity). Better to be forced for a period of time which is typically very brief relative to the length of one's life, and to then live one's life with the option of taking matters into one's own hands, than not to live at all. There is no realistic and sensible alternative.

Love, intellectual discovery, great sex (not once, but over and over again for years) laughter, religious ecstasy, art, film, opera (often about suffering -- like Madam Butterfly from the Met today), great books, wonderful bicycle rides, swimming in the ocean and almost drowning, beach combing, laying in the warm sun, desires both met and unfulfilled, wonderful food, like the lamb chops at Figlios (they stopped making them, so life is a bit less worth living), the scallops and clam chowder at Legal Seafood, the fried clams at the little fly-spec shop in Mattapan--Simco's on the Bridge, chocolate, blueberry pie, etc.) massage, beautiful handsome men (or for you, maybe, beautiful women), dogs, squirrels... — Bitter Crank

You must be very privileged if you think that all those things you describe comes without costs or with as much as you purport here. Sometimes I think things like this come straight from feel good news programs that focus on someone who opened a new school for the disadvantaged and the guy who participates in an extreme sport, etc. This goes back into the idea of living in a non-ideal world. None of the things you so poetically describe there actually come in the idealistic ways in which you convey them in your list (one suggested great moment after another).

Love- much of this comes with strife as every other book/music/art reiterates over and over again in almost every culture since cave man. How much fighting, boredom, angst, awkwardness, selfishness, discomfort, and one-sidedness, also comes with pursuing, sustaining, love? Divorce is at more than 50%. For every person who has their ideal mate, there is a sad lonely person. Perhaps they have a mental problem, perhaps luck just was not on their side. The outcome is the same for these people. And, that is only people that do not attain love in the first place. Then, there are people who experience love, but then have it leave thus creating more pain. Perhaps it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. I guess both types are screwed. Then, there are the people who stay with someone they "love", but are bored or find that what was an intoxicating thing is now simply a utilitarian thing. This may be the pedestrian. But, I think this overcompensating need for the suffering to be stark or nothing at all, is misguided as much as cursing life for a stubbed toe. There are such subtle (what I call) micro-harms, that affect us negatively, I would not for the life of me see why they should be ignored in order to demand that unless one has debilitating cancer, then life is worthwhile.

Intellectual discovery- I think most of us here value this. But besides reading about the volumes of things other people have thought up, most people are cut off from actually participating by not being a part of the actual levers of change that make this. I mean, we all like bullshitting about philosophy, a few are probably professional philosophy professors. However, how many people usually get to be a part of the major discoveries that affected our technological/scientific knowledge? Usually you have to have a knack for a certain math or scientific discipline.

Great sex- Well, besides sexually transmitted disease, this comes with the cost similar to love. Some people have a lot of it, some get none or very little. I think I said in another thread that it is unevenly distributed. Actually, it is worse because here is this primal desire that most people have (from cultural cues or biological cues), it's all around us, but not necessarily available to all people. How could you not say that pursuits of sex/love does not bring great pain as well? Is it good just because the pain can be used for grist in millions of works of poetry/music/art? This does not seem the appropriate response. "Don't worry, just write a song- see it's great!"

I'll just use these as examples. This montage of "worthwhile" moments come at great costs which on balance might lead to more of a net negative, either looked at on the whole, or for individuals. The fact that first world problems are problems in the first place, means that there is something wrong with this ideal picture. We should all be living in a utopia of endless love, sex, laughter, and play, yet this is not the case.

No doubt, your greatest defense for all this is to probably say that the person not experiencing any of these things is just not trying hard enough or is simply not seeing the joy. A little hope goes a long way. The carrot needs to be there to keep moving forward. More self-help books to read about changing your habits, thoughts, to make positive things happen. "If only I was less defective in the whole outlook department and in my actions, my life would be better somehow". It is a fact that it is a non-ideal world. It is a conceit to think that you can think yourself into an ideal world. Yes, the world was not meant for our particular versions of an ideal world, we adjust and survive in it however we can. Perhaps we can find better ways to adjust. Perhaps we can find better ways to concentrate on a task so as not to think of life as a whole. Perhaps we try to run more smoothly on the surface. Perhaps we can find better coping mechanisms. This does not mean that it is good, just because we can adjust to non-ideal circumstances.

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 — Sapientia

I've already replied to this claim of yours. There's no need to link it to me again, for I can merely link my own reply back to you.

and that is what you're robbing them of, so to speak. (And don't take that too literally — Sapientia

Then how am I to take it? Where is the nuance? This claim is bullshit on stilts. Please do assuage my indignation as to your continued absurd declarations on behalf of non-existent people.

That those who so desire can pursue the goal of experiencing worthwhile things without procreating is utterly beside the point — Sapientia

I don't understand why.

if it is simply true that life is worthwhile — Sapientia

That wasn't your claim. You said: "I don't think that it's simply true that life is worthwhile."

t might also be worth noting, to all it may concern, that the point of my argument is more about validity than soundness. I was responding to the charge that my conclusion doesn't follow. — Sapientia

Not that I think we're somehow going to reach it, but if you don't care about the truth (soundness), I can stop replying right now. You can make all the valid arguments you want, but if you don't like me objecting to some of your premises, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

There's something about living in a non-ideal world that for some reason some people are so attached to. The tragedy of existence becomes romantic and something to be cherished. Look at the toils and strife person x goes through every day, look at their journey, look at their character and strength!

Is that masochistic?

Is that masochistic? — darthbarracuda

The very definition thereof.

Yes, it's also forcing them to experience joy and many other things. — Sapientia

Suffering is guaranteed, joy is unlikely.

You must be very privileged if you think that all those things you describe comes without costs or with as much as you purport here. — schopenhauer1

I have not lived a life of "privilege" at all. Good luck, yes; bad luck, yes. No privileges.

None of the things you so poetically describe there actually come in the idealistic ways in which you convey them in your list (one suggested great moment after another) — schopenhauer1

None not all, the things I described always come in [as you say] the 'ideal' package. Surely not. Once in a while somethings might come achieve the 'ideal'. But every experience doesn't have to be ideal or great. Sex and love are not peak experiences every time (that would undermine the very idea of peak experiences). But it the case that is either perfection or horror. There are a lot of pleasant gradations in sex and love after perfection and before one gets to the bad experiences.

If you and the other fatalists cum antinatalists can describe everything as inevitably leading to a shit pile, I don't see why I can't describe the same things as at least possibly leading to a rose garden--just no promises.

For every person who has their ideal mate, there is a sad lonely person. — schopenhauer1

Maybe. Have you done a census and determined that the world is 50% perfectly mated and 50% sad and lonely? I've been sad and lonely. It happens to people. Being sad and lonely might be the fault of the sufferer, maybe not. I know for sure that some people are sad and lonely as a result of the way they look at the world.

Intellectual discovery- I think most of us here value this. — schopenhauer1

Right, and you don't have to discover the next previously unknown sub-atomic particle or previously unseen star. Most (all?) of the territory 99% of us discover, somebody else has already lived on. Remember when you "discovered" Schopenhauer? I imagine that was a pretty good day for you.

Great sex- Well, besides sexually transmitted disease, this comes with the cost similar to love. Some people have a lot of it, some get none or very little. — schopenhauer1

Do STDs cause suffering? You bet. I've had STDs. Most men who were or are out there playing the field (especially before AIDS and condoms) got STDs. Ditto for women. People considered STDs a tolerable risk for having sex long before the discovery of penicillin. (I'm all in favor of individuals and institutions observing public health precautions, however. Recklessly spreading disease is a decidedly unfriendly action.)

There are no guarantees that one will get sex. Wanting sex, and not being able to find a partner, is an unhappy experience. In parts of the world where parents have skewed the birth rate in favor males, a lot of men are without partners -- just not enough women to go around. There are solutions to the problem, but don't hold your breath.

I've had gone for years without sex. When I was a young gay guy in rural Minnesota (way before Stonewall) finding suitable sex partners was a problem I didn't solve until I got the hell out of the rural midwest. Was I unhappy and miserable between the age of puberty and 26? No. One finds alternate means.

No doubt, your greatest defense for all this is to probably say that the person not experiencing any of these things is just not trying hard enough or is simply not seeing the joy. — schopenhauer1

No, happiness can't be forced. Happiness in this world is certain not automatic, but I don't think strenuous efforts can be counted on to produce happiness, either.

"Happiness" is not a state of the world, it's a condition of individuals, and we have some control over how they feel.

1. People can and do (at times) prevent happiness from existing in their lives. People have been known to torpedo their potential happiness by setting up self-fulfilling prophecies of doom, or of preventing the good by demanding the perfect.
2. People must be careful about "how they talk to themselves". Bad experiences are real enough, but one can enshrine the experience by dwelling on the event. Sometimes one has to say one's regrets and move on. Some people work hard at talking themselves into a negative view of life.

Millions of people have been subjected to horrible experiences, and are no longer intact. I don't expect victims of war-time atrocities (or peace time equivalents) to "just get over it". They might not be able to experience happiness. Such people are a suffering minority in need of care.

None not all, the things I described always come in [as you say] the 'ideal' package. Surely not. Once in a while somethings might come achieve the 'ideal'. But every experience doesn't have to be ideal or great. Sex and love are not peak experiences every time (that would undermine the very idea of peak experiences). But it the case that is either perfection or horror. There are a lot of pleasant gradations in sex and love after perfection and before one gets to the bad experiences. — Bitter Crank

So at least you are willing to tone it down a bit. That's a start. "WORTHWHILE" with a definite head nod, becomes "worthwhile?" with a shrug and a question mark. Also, you did not directly address my point that love and sex is unevenly distributed, probably even more so than other things in life.

Maybe. Have you done a census and determined that the world is 50% perfectly mated and 50% sad and lonely? — Bitter Crank

Actually, I suspect the number is pretty high but people are less likely to admit such a weak characterization to others.

Right, and you don't have to discover the next previously unknown sub-atomic particle or previously unseen star. Most (all?) of the territory 99% of us discover, somebody else has already lived on. Remember when you "discovered" Schopenhauer? I imagine that was a pretty good day for you. — Bitter Crank

Yep, reading Schopenhauer can be pretty satisfying. To be fair, I was addressing intellectual discovery in the sense of people actually discovering something new, and actually adding to our knowledge of the world or being able to advance technology. As far as actually affecting the world with intellectual discovery- it's pretty dismal numbers as you point out.

Do STDs cause suffering? You bet. I've had STDs. Most men who were or are out there playing the field (especially before AIDS and condoms) got STDs. Ditto for women. People considered STDs a tolerable risk for having sex long before the discovery of penicillin. (I'm all in favor of individuals and institutions observing public health precautions, however. Recklessly spreading disease is a decidedly unfriendly action.) — Bitter Crank

Ok, so we agree that STD's can cause suffering...

There are no guarantees that one will get sex. Wanting sex, and not being able to find a partner, is an unhappy experience. In parts of the world where parents have skewed the birth rate in favor males, a lot of men are without partners -- just not enough women to go around. There are solutions to the problem, but don't hold your breath. — Bitter Crank

Ok, so we agree that pursuits of love and sex can lead to a lot of unhappiness..

I've had gone for years without sex. When I was a young gay guy in rural Minnesota (way before Stonewall) finding suitable sex partners was a problem I didn't solve until I got the hell out of the rural midwest. Was I unhappy and miserable between the age of puberty and 26? No. One finds alternate means. — Bitter Crank

This just seems like a non-sequitor. So, what is the subtext here? People should just stop complaining and learn to deal with not getting things they want or desire? Yeah, people do that all the time. It doesn't mean that it is not negative. It just means people have different coping mechanisms. This just reiterates the adjustments. All I know is you are throwing some sort of counterexample out there, that may or may not be true in part or whole.

No, happiness can't be forced. Happiness in this world is certain not automatic, but I don't think strenuous efforts can be counted on to produce happiness, either. — Bitter Crank

Ok, so we agree, you cannot think your way into happiness...

"Happiness" is not a state of the world, it's a condition of individuals, and we have some control over how they feel. — Bitter Crank

This I disagree with. This is exactly where I predicted you would go. I will simply respond with what I said earlier:

"If only I was less defective in the whole outlook department and in my actions, my life would be better somehow". It is a fact that it is a non-ideal world. It is a conceit to think that you can think yourself into an ideal world. Yes, the world was not meant for our particular versions of an ideal world, we adjust and survive in it however we can. Perhaps we can find better ways to adjust. Perhaps we can find better ways to concentrate on a task so as not to think of life as a whole. Perhaps we try to run more smoothly on the surface. Perhaps we can find better coping mechanisms. This does not mean that it is good, just because we can adjust to non-ideal circumstances. — schopenhauer1

If you and the other fatalists cum antinatalists can describe everything as inevitably leading to a shit pile, I don't see why I can't describe the same things as at least possibly leading to a rose garden--just no promises. — Bitter Crank

Entropy, the acceleration of decay. The rose garden is a second-order establishment, built upon a pile of fertilizer (manure).

I don't know about the other people arguing here and what they think about happiness or contentedness or happy-endings, but in my opinion, the rose-garden, white picket fence, happy spouse and a charming lifestyle exist only in the movies. If they exist in the real world, they last for a short time, and are not guaranteed to everyone (some people have an unfair advantage over others, a "head-start" that actually keeps them ahead while pushing everyone else behind). Every once in a while you'll hear about the self-made man who built himself up from the shreds of poverty, and this is supposed to inspire and motivate people to work hard and achieve their dreams. It's all just a joke, unfortunately. It's a nice little narrative to keep people dreaming, and insofar as you are under the influence of the dream, everything seems alright. The hero that built himself up no doubt tried hard (which should be enough to show how faulty this system is...a person has to work their asses off just to make a living), but also was extraordinarily lucky. For there are tens of millions of people just like him who would kill for that kind of opportunity.

This is the crux of my pessimism: it is not that life is unbearably bad at all times and that at every moment of my life I wish I could die (can't say anything about anyone else here though), but rather that I have, at least from my perspective, taken off the rose-tinted glasses and seen life for what it is: it's an ugly, pointless, harsh, depriving, harmful and disgusting cycle of desire, disappointment, regret, conflict (competition), pain, and death, and the nature of the beast is hidden just in case you limit your attention to the incoming blows that threaten your very existence. It seems as though this evaluation can only occur if you are lucky enough to not have to scruple for crumbs every day of your life. Thus, why philosophers like Schopenhauer who lived a rather posh and privileged lifestyle were given the opportunity to reflect upon the lives of others and themselves.

I liken my pessimism (which leads to my antinatalism) to being a soldier in the front lines of battle, seeing his fellow platoon mates yell as more and more shells explode in front of them. I'm stuck in no-man's-land (just as everyone else is), viewing the pointless carnage, and then I hear the whistle as the captain, safe behind the trenches, sends another wave of men out to die (analogous to birth). You can hear the charade, the trumpet fanfare, the shouts of victory and triumph for the first initial seconds as the men sprint on the field, unaware of the nature of the game, high on adrenaline and ambition. Each man has dreams, each man wants to be a hero, but no man wants to die. But from the collective frenzy of fear and group habit, each man runs out anyway.

Hearing the scream as a bullet barely misses me, I sigh in relief even as I hear the squelch of the bullet hit a man next to me. But it's not me that the bullet hit. It's not me that is suffering. There's no need to worry about life!, just keep running blindly into the minefield! You'll be fine!...

But where to run to? Do we just keep running forward blindly? What's the goal? What's the end-point? There's hardly enough time actually stop running and appreciate some of the aesthetics of life before you have to go back to dodging and running. We are, in Heidegger's words, Beings-Towards-Death.

In the end, as each and every one of us lies dying on the field, never reaching the end, what will come to mind? Surely we have to justify this wreck. Surely there has to be a point to all this conflict. There's got to be a point...right? Those white-picket fences, those cute little puppies, the smell of fresh-cut grass...is that it?! What are we fighting for?!

Perhaps you and others think that this analogy is too dark and repetitive. To this I only have to say that if our lives weren't filled with suffering, we'd have to fill them with an empathetic substitute (entertainment). We enjoy seeing others squirm on television, so long as it is not ourselves that is squirming. And we enjoy drinking the kool-aid when we listen to the few lucky people who somehow managed to not get hit by a bullet during their run of life, because it helps us pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and keep us from questioning the unquestionable, from realizing how each and every one of us is a ticking time bomb, and that all of us have a delicate, precarious disposition to suicide.

This response turned out to be longer than I expected. But I'd like to end by saying that what I experience is a profound feeling of disillusionment and, at times, despair, regarding the hopelessness and pointlessness of the world, and that I have absolutely no desire to bring this upon another person and because of this I wish nobody wished this to be so. Perhaps this is why I enjoy amateur astronomy so much: I can look out into the heavens and know that the beautiful cloud of dust that I am viewing is most likely toxic to life as we know it and will not harbor the same horrors that exist on this planet.

Here's a good TED talk that seems relevant:

I initially only intended to write out a response to @Wosret. However, after reading the above by darthbarracuda, I think that's a more relevant discussion to get into.
Questions:
1) Why is it necessarily the case that entropy is in some sense a necessary evil, at least at the present time?
2) By the same token, in what sense is it the case that an objective purpose or goal to life is a necessary requirement to justify bringing in new life?
3) In what sense is existential suffering related to physical and emotional suffering? Is there a hierarchy of suffering? Is one prior to the others? What is the character of this suffering, and in what sense is it related to lack of objective purpose/goal?
4) I grant this world is terrible. I even grant that it is likely that some form of population reduction is necessary in order to improve the livability of the world. What I don't understand is the argument that there is some necessary and fundamental flaw in the world that makes it impossible to justify bringing in new life. So I'd like to ask a different question. In what fundamental ways would this world have to change in order to justify natalism (in the sense that it is morally permitted, though not required to have children)?

I have read @darthbarracuda's previous comment that states that there is some structural flaw in that preferences will necessarily be frustrated through existence. I'm not convinced that preference frustration is even intrinsically bad to begin with; or that it's impossible to engineer a hypothetical where everyone is able to satisfy their desires/preferences.

@The Great Whatever on the other hand intuits that it might be impossible to improve the world in some fundamental way, and that if there were some way to alter the world in this way, philosophy wouldn't be able to say anything about it. I'd like to know your thoughts on 4.

Wosret, I initially wanted to write out an entire post responding to you specifically, but I'd like to make some clarificatory statements regarding my views: It isn't necessary for me to assume that we all ought to be moral. I think you have some concerns regarding the conflation of the meaning/purpose of life with the moral goals. I'm agnostic as to whether there is any meaning or purpose to life, but I think it is undeniable that objective morality exists. At the same time, I don't worry about the is-ought gap too much, since morality need only describe what the right thing to do is without making any assumptions about how the world "ought" to be. With regard to specific examples, I don't see how those would be fruitful without context. Think along the lines of Kant's formula of universal law and the golden rule.

One of the biggest issues in the modern world, and problems for sustainability, and quality of life is population density. Many great philanthropists have suggested that the earth's population needs to be reduced by at least a third, some suggest down into the hundreds of millions. The greatest evils in history have always been committed for the greater good, with people far too focused on humanity as a whole, or at least nationally, and how to protect and secure it's future in the face of threats. The best of intentions can lead to genocide. We don't want to do things bottom up, lead by example, live small and ethically, and have faith, and hope for the future. We want to enact large scale forcible macro changes that most of humanity are too ignorant or wicked to get on board with, so that we can protect them from themselves.

Doesn't matter whether or not morality is objective, since we often disagree about what is and isn't moral, there being an absolute right answer to every moral dilemma doesn't imply that you are the one that knows what it is, and everyone of a different opinion is wrong.

Real change, real improvement is bottom up. Beginning on the individual level, with your character, your generosity, your acts of kindness, your sustainable life, and personal reduction. Live your life in a moral way, have courage to stand for the things you believe and uphold, and have faith in humanity.

Since this forum is a philosophy forum, I'd expect that the discussions would tend to the grandiose. I also don't see why anyone ought to be moral, unless they are already motivated to be moral in the first place. Also, the question of whether any individual can have access to an objective morality and whether there is an objective morality are distinct questions. You say whether there is one or not doesn't matter, I contend that at this stage, whether we can access that objective morality doesn't matter. Yes, moral philosophy is still in its infancy when compared to other academic fields, and moral disagreement exists- but moral disagreement isn't the problem, it's the symptom of the problem. In addition, if you're right and I'm more likely to be wrong, why would you encourage anyone to live morally? Advising someone to act morally implies that you think a person can have some form of access to an objective morality, else you think that person's subjective morality tends to accord with your own- and how would you know that?

Furthermore, to dismiss all discussion on moral philosophy since none of us will have access to it/ it is an impractical exercise is to miss the point entirely. Given the range of impractical things we could be discussing on this forum (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of art/science/math), in what way is discussing moral philosophy somehow inferior to any of those discussions? In addition, how many of these discussions aim to settle, once and for all the questions in their fields?

I think most of us here are primarily here because we enjoy discussing philosophy, and not because we are out to be moral saints (myself included). It goes without saying there are likely many other things we could be doing instead of arguing with one another on a forum or in real life.

However, I'm inclined to agree that for most of us, we're really only capable of minor actions and we can only hope to make some small impact on our immediate surroundings.

In the Meno dialogue, Socrates asks for a definition of righteousness from Meno, whom suggests that a righteous person is someone that always chooses to do the right thing, and never do the wrong thing. Socrates explains to Meno that this is an empty definition, as everyone wants the good and the right. Inherent in the meanings of the words, in the concepts themselves is that they are the things that we should want and do. The problem is never in motivation, or orientation, but in actually discerning what is moral, and immoral in the first place. He then suggests to Meno that even the gods themselves have disagreements on the correct choices of action, does thing imply that some of them knowing suggest evil, false, or innappriopriate actions?

There is nothing written into the stars that makes you have to want to believe true things, or be rational either -- but usually no one needs to convince us, when we actually know what the words mean.

I suggest enacting your moral code in your own life, and to guide yourself, minding your own business, and letting people decide for themselves if your moral code is worthy of enacting in their lives, or ignoring it, allowing it to begin on the micro scale, and flourish into the macro scale, rather than attempt to impose, or not trust others to make the correct decisions, or force a better world on us, clearly because the damage down by being wrong in the first case is far less severe than being wrong in second case.

I didn't dismiss discussion of any kind, for any reason.

My suggestion wasn't something like our limited power forces us to only take minor actions, and make small impacts, but that this is the most desirable approach.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with Socrates then, in particular with the point that "everyone wants the good and the right". I might concede that it is a moral requirement not to eat meat, but I still choose to eat meat because it's delicious. Humans aren't hard-wired to be moral.

In addition, moral disagreement isn't proof of moral subjectivity.

Regarding truth and rationality, we make decisions based on emotions at times. Love is a good example of something that tends to override reason. Eating too much when you're trying to lose weight is another. We don't have to be, nor are we always rational.

Even so, what is it about the proper understanding of morality, or truth, or rationality necessarily compels anyone to be moral or rational? What is that founded on? Furthermore, even if there were some psychological explanation as to why we find certain things compelling, so what? How is that indicative of a way that we ought to be, as opposed to it simply being the case that these things are compelling, and we are simply compelled to be in a particular way?

Neither am I suggesting that any given individual impose any form of morality on anyone else, at least in this current state of affairs. I can imagine a few hypotheticals where I'd definitely subscribe to said imposition, but those would require some far-out assumptions.

What I don't understand is the argument that there is some necessary and fundamental flaw in the world that makes it impossible to justify bringing in new life. So I'd like to ask a different question. In what fundamental ways would this world have to change in order to justify natalism (in the sense that it is morally permitted, though not required to have children)? — Sinderion

Our existence in the world is at the same time fundamentally passive and fundamentally coercive. Passive because we can't choose to be born, and our primary, if not only, mode of experience is suffering -- things incorrigibly happen to us, and our being alive is shot through with pain, which is an experience that is terrible by its own criterion. We move about in response to that pain, and in so doing we interact with, i.e. cause (coerce) pain in, other people. The world, such as it is, just is that interlocking coercive institution of endless pain. If you somehow took that away, there would be no intelligible 'world' as we know it, and so the idea of fundamentally fixing the world to be something other than this doesn't make sense.