Yes, so to speak the less moving parts the more durable a mechanical good. Analogously the less desire to entertain, the greater chance for tranquility and stable equilibria.

Though now that I think about it, that kind of idiotizes the whole issue.

Though now that I think about it, that kind of idiotizes the whole issue. — Posty McPostface

So much the better for me.

Whatever works. Plug and chug as they say.

@Baden @darth@apokrisis
I see this "dealing with" problem one that cannot be easily dismissed. Why do we want new people to experience the "dealing with" of life? I can't think of a good response other than the namesake of this thread, "Good Experiences". I've had other threads on "human potential" being a crock. There's another potential answer that falls flat in light of the viciously absurd, repetitious nature of life. More survival, maintenance, boredom-fleeing, contingent suffering. I see nothing wrong in not creating a state of affairs where a new person deals with life, and then is retroactively supposed to cope with it. In fact, it is not just not wrong, but the best course of action (which is in this case, to simply not act).

This is the type of perverse interpretation (from my point of view) that constantly undermines your position. Dealing with life is a way to express our freedom, and to address what you said earlier, it's not just the fact that the consequence of antinatalism is no new people who suffer. The ultimate consequence of antinatalism is no new people at all. Therefore no love, no joy, no freedom, no imagination, no insight, no wonder, no poetry, no art, no philosophy...no pessimist philosophy (hang on, maybe it's not all bad... ;) ) So, anti-natalism is just giving up. That's all. Folding. Dying. Losing. With a romantic semi-theological edge dressed up in philosophical garb.

Having said all that, I am not against (as I think I stated before) examining systemic structural negatives in life (in so far as they can be considered so) as a philosophical endeavor. And I see nothing wrong with someone deciding not to have children because of their anti-natalist beliefs. But again, it's based on a particular interpretation. And there's no common ground to leverage with the other side once both are aware of the potential negatives but disagree on their interpretation.

Therefore no love, no joy, no freedom, no imagination, no insight, no wonder, no poetry, no art, no philosophy...no pessimist philosophy (hang on, maybe it's not all bad... ;) ) So, anti-natalism is just giving up. That's all. Folding. Dying. Losing. With a romantic semi-theological edge dressed up in philosophical garb. — Baden

Ha, no phil pess? No life to complain about? :gasp: . But there would be no one to be deprived of these things either. Experiences are not something that need to be had through the vessel of a new individual. Nothingness never needed nothing.. Just because we think of some boring black hole, doesn't negate this fact that a universe without experience is simply that and is nothing sad/depressing or the like in and of itself (which we both know is a truism). It's simply the outcome of no one around to have to deal with anything (nothing wrong with that.. at least no one is being thrown into the dealing with). It's also literally unthinkable (in the literal sense).. other than retroactive projection (like thinking of death). What is it that we think more individuals need to be added to the project of Humanity Inc.?

Having said all that, I am not against (as I think I stated before) examining systemic structural negatives in life (in so far as they can be considered so) as a philosophical endeavor. And I see nothing wrong with someone deciding not to have children because of their anti-natalist beliefs. But again, it's based on a particular interpretation. And there's no common ground to leverage with the other side once both are aware of the potential negatives. — Baden

This is with many philosophical grey zones. However, anti-natalism will lead to no start of the state of affairs where suffering takes place for a new individual. What to do about us who are already existing though? Not much to change structural suffering. And contingent harms will keep on going.. and we will keep on coping with them, and we will keep on retroactively making it "alright because it was a learning experience, or it made us better people, or at least it wasn't as bad as that kid in Africa or the person with the brain tumor, or at least you got to have something, or just pull yourself by the bootstraps and run that treadmill in 'this' proscribed way, etc because you needed to be born to learn this particular proscribed way" (vicious circle?).. Ignore, repress, anchor, etc. But don't worry! We have media to try to give us stories of inspiration and hope of people who dared to think the unthinkable and that could be YOU too!!! :shade: .

Edit: And what what does "Losing" really even mean in this regard? What race? And how does that matter? Are individual humans here to prop up some metaphysical game it is having with the universe? By being born, perhaps we have already lost.. we have fallen from the Garden. The Temptation to Exist, the Fall into Exile, the Trouble with Being Born, The Fall into Time (and other such Cioran sounding book titles).

@darthbarracuda was onto something. We are not like the rest of the universe. You can conflate humans as just another part of the whole (i.e. the naturalism of apo), but it's actually not. We are self-aware.. not only primary consciousness but secondary. We are not just DNA living out its mechanisms. We are not just animals living off mostly instinctual drives with some clever learning here and there. We have self-awareness through the processes of our brain capacities. This makes us not as balanced as we think. The possibilities of imagination are seemingly endless, but so is the understanding of our situation as living embodied beings that could have been otherwise, that endures such and such, and can understand (at least in whatever degree we can) what the situation is.

This makes us not as balanced as we think. — schopenhauer1

I've noticed. ;)

OK, well, we are just repeating our positions, aren't we? There's a chasm across which our shouts will never form a bridge.

One could see this on two levels, both significant in their way.

On a literal, physical, practical level perhaps the earth could benefit from anti-natalism. Just based on current circumstances and environmental conditions, it seems the earth is close to its so-called carrying capacity. Even if the earth could potentially handle say 10 billion people, current human civilization could not deal with it in any satisfactory way. The human cities, especially the largest ones, are both a marvel and a catastrophe, simultaneously. Better planning could remedy some of the pain and overcrowding, but that is easier said than done. Even without relying absolutely on the arguments of peak oil and climate change, there are major environmental and population issues arriving that are unprecedented. So some people putting the brakes on reproduction, or at least giving it skepticism and doubt, is a positive thing.

The second level has been referred to in this thread perhaps indirectly. It’s what I was getting at in my post about the Buddha’s notion of suffering and its possible cure. The idea and reality of karma, action and reaction, causes and effects. Ripples flowing out endlessly from each action, even from each thought. Thought and intention have a power as great as action often times. The Eastern concepts of extinction and avoiding re-birth and going beyond karma grasp this. To over-generalize perhaps, the Western way often is that “more is better” and “anything is better than nothing”. Not just products and money, but people, words, ideas, experiences, time, space, more of anything imaginable. Just to have a model of counterbalance to that Yang, that “unlimited growth”, is helpful.

Our paradox is this. Humans are animals. Humans are not animals. Both statements are facts. Both statements best be appreciated for the potential knowledge and action come from understanding them.

@Baden @darthbarracuda (to keep everyone looped in)
Interesting post.. Here's some thoughts.

On a literal, physical, practical level perhaps the earth could benefit from anti-natalism. Just based on current circumstances and environmental conditions, it seems the earth is close to its so-called carrying capacity. Even if the earth could potentially handle say 10 billion people, current human civilization could not deal with it in any satisfactory way. The human cities, especially the largest ones, are both a marvel and a catastrophe, simultaneously. Better planning could remedy some of the pain and overcrowding, but that is easier said than done. Even without relying absolutely on the arguments of peak oil and climate change, there are major environmental and population issues arriving that are unprecedented. So some people putting the brakes on reproduction, or at least giving it skepticism and doubt, is a positive thing. — 0 thru 9

Although I see the points made about reducing humans in order to "let the planet breathe" so-to-say, and I am nominally in agreement with this, this is more a hypothetical imperative. The ethic of saving the planet, doesn't really make sense without its human impact, and thus these are strategies to continue the human project through putting constraints on population. This to me is secondary or at least derivative of the primary goal of antinatalism which I think is to prevent all structural and contingent suffering for a future person.

The second level has been referred to in this thread perhaps indirectly. It’s what I was getting at in my post about the Buddha’s notion of suffering and its possible cure. The idea and reality of karma, action and reaction, causes and effects. Ripples flowing out endlessly from each action, even from each thought. Thought and intention have a power as great as action often times. The Eastern concepts of extinction and avoiding re-birth and going beyond karma grasp this. To over-generalize perhaps, the Western way often is that “more is better” and “anything is better than nothing”. Not just products and money, but people, words, ideas, experiences, time, space, more of anything imaginable. Just to have a model of counterbalance to that Yang, that “unlimited growth”, is helpful. — 0 thru 9

No this is actually more directly related to this thread. Schopenhauer's philosophy of suffering closely parallels that of Buddhism which has been widely noted, even by Schopenhauer himself in his own writings. Schopenhauer thought there was a principle of Will which is the reality at the flipped side of our appearances based in time/space/causality and the PSR in general. Anyways, Schop thought the best course of action was to "quiet the Will" by becoming an ascetic and compassionate acts. Schop thought that at the root of things is emptiness. Behind all pursuits there is nothing to be had. He thought we could "feel" this with our experience of profound boredom. Thus, boredom is not just an epiphenomenon of humans having emotions, but telling us something about existence itself qua existence. We always have to be goal-oriented to try to get away from this negative aspect of restless boredom. This is part of the structural suffering found in his and other philosophical pessimist philosophers.

Our paradox is this. Humans are animals. Humans are not animals. Both statements are facts. Both statements best be appreciated for the potential knowledge and action come from understanding them. — 0 thru 9

Well interesting you bring up this double-aspect. It would be nice and dandy to wrap it up and say we are just animals with a different degree of consciousness. However, that does not appear to be the case. We are animals with a wholly "Other" kind of self-awareness then even animals as intelligent as chimps and dolphins. Despite claims otherwise (and this is getting down a whole different tangent if we let it go too far requiring yet another thread on animal intelligence..) other animals do not have the comprehensive linguistic-conceptual framework that allows for almost complete cultural (conceptual/linguistic) abilities to survive. This in turn has given us other abilities, including among much else, our ability to know our existential situation in the first place. Other animals are at home in their existence, following instinctual drives or context-dependent learning. Their self-awareness is little to none. There are no "existentially depressed" animals. A bird makes its nest, finds mates, etc. based on largely pre-programmed drives with some limited context-dependent flexible learning also thrown in.

Did you see this piece in the Oxonian Review?

"David Benatar indirectly suggests the value of basic conscious existence when he grieves our eventual annihilations, but what he doesn’t clearly acknowledge is that experience itself is a powerful, continuous good while we are alive, and might even be significant enough to outweigh many of life’s misfortunes. Leave it to a pessimist to regret the harm of losing oneself without recognizing the value of being oneself"

RTWT here:

http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/the-vise-side-of-life/

"David Benatar indirectly suggests the value of basic conscious existence when he grieves our eventual annihilations, but what he doesn’t clearly acknowledge is that experience itself is a powerful, continuous good while we are alive, and might even be significant enough to outweigh many of life’s misfortunes. Leave it to a pessimist to regret the harm of losing oneself without recognizing the value of being oneself" — Vinson

This is Woody Allen:

“There's an old joke - Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly.”

Yeah, sometimes in disagreement with Benatar. I think he has some good points regarding pessimism, but others I think he relies too heavily on hedonistic calculating which is not the pessimism I am ascribing to. I'm more Schopenhaurean in the systemic view rather than a utilitarian view.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. Try to reply to your reply, will I. (sorry :smile: )

Although I see the points made about reducing humans in order to "let the planet breathe" so-to-say, and I am nominally in agreement with this, this is more a hypothetical imperative. The ethic of saving the planet, doesn't really make sense without its human impact, and thus these are strategies to continue the human project through putting constraints on population. This to me is secondary or at least derivative of the primary goal of antinatalism which I think is to prevent all structural and contingent suffering for a future person. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I see the point you are making here. That antinatalism isn’t primarily concerned with “saving the earth”. Was mentioning this to show at least one hard and fast practical benefit of antinatalism. Though I have read works that say in effect that “Gaia is trying to throw off the virus that is humanity in order to save itself”, or similar notions. And that some people are in favor of such, more for the sake of the planet and other creatures. Not that I necessarily agree with this tangential point.

However... would you consider it theoretically possible to have the earth’s population and civilization’s structure at a point where suffering was greatly diminished from where it generally is now? Such that antinatalism could be perceived as a relative strategy and position, rather than an absolute and inflexible tenet? If so, I would find the position to be more supportable. But that simply might be due to the fact that I consider absolutes to be the realm of the gods, which humans only deal with indirectly, existing as relative beings in a relative world. (More tangled tangents, sorry).

No this is actually more directly related to this thread. Schopenhauer's philosophy of suffering closely parallels that of Buddhism which has been widely noted, even by Schopenhauer himself in his own writings. Schopenhauer thought there was a principle of Will which is the reality at the flipped side of our appearances based in time/space/causality and the PSR in general. Anyways, Schop thought the best course of action was to "quiet the Will" by becoming an ascetic and compassionate acts. Schop thought that at the root of things is emptiness. Behind all pursuits there is nothing to be had. He thought we could "feel" this with our experience of profound boredom. Thus, boredom is not just an epiphenomenon of humans having emotions, but telling us something about existence itself qua existence. We always have to be goal-oriented to try to get away from this negative aspect of restless boredom. This is part of the structural suffering found in his and other philosophical pessimist philosophers. — schopenhauer1

You are right that the suffering (and its causes and remedies) aspect is closer to the heart of the matter. As I mentioned in my post above, I believe that every action is important, and each thought is crucial. Even if we don’t notice any immediate effects. And that the decision whether or not to have a child might be the most critical decision a person makes, as it full of consequences. So a second practical benefit of antinatalism is to make a person seriously consider the “downside” of having offspring. Usually, if a married couple of reproductive age desire a child and have a nice home, in a safe neighborhood, and are making a comfortable living, the answer seems obvious. Obviously, the choice is completely up to them. But if this theoretical couple’s thinking does not go beyond their desire and optimal environment, they might be in for a rude awakening. But such is life, always teaching us even we have mentally checked out.

Well interesting you bring up this double-aspect. It would be nice and dandy to wrap it up and say we are just animals with a different degree of consciousness. However, that does not appear to be the case. We are animals with a wholly "Other" kind of self-awareness then even animals as intelligent as chimps and dolphins. Despite claims otherwise (and this is getting down a whole different tangent if we let it go too far requiring yet another thread on animal intelligence..) other animals do not have the comprehensive linguistic-conceptual framework that allows for almost complete cultural (conceptual/linguistic) abilities to survive. This in turn has given us other abilities, including among much else, our ability to know our existential situation in the first place. Other animals are at home in their existence, following instinctual drives or context-dependent learning. Their self-awareness is little to none. There are no "existentially depressed" animals. A bird makes its nest, finds mates, etc. based on largely pre-programmed drives with some limited context-dependent flexible learning also thrown in. — schopenhauer1

Hmm. Well... humans are mammals. All mammals are animals. I don’t mean to play word games here, without any purpose. And it’s a whole other discussion. I agree that Homo Sapiens have evolved to the most advanced intellectual level, architectural level, and arguably the most social level. (Surprisingly, even before the invention of Facebook). But an advancement, even an evolutionary one, is just that: an advantage or ability. And I would argue that believing in humans’ superiority over animals confers upon us (perhaps ironically) no advantages or abilities. In fact, it may make us believe that we are completely exempt from the laws of nature that seem to govern the animal kingdom. (By the way, discussed this in a thread about the ideas of Daniel Quinn here). To define humanity absolutely by the 5% or 18% (or whatever) genetic or cognitive difference from another primate is to unintentionally distain the majority of commonality. To ignore the foundations in order to praise the steeple. And by the way (as a comment on your point), there have been numerous instances of animals displaying the behavioral symptoms of depression, not surprisingly in captivity. Weight gain or loss, reduced activity, solitary tendencies, etc. No one can get into their mind of course but the behavior is analogous to that of humans, in this case at least. And that we “can’t get into their mind” is significant too. We just do not know for certain what their mental and spiritual experience is really like.

Anyway, more tangents. I know that comparing and contrasting humans and animals is not the topic, and I’m barking up the wrong family tree. (But hey, antinatalism presents many potential consequences!) In comparison with animals, humans are the far younger species in most cases. Native Americans called them “ancestors”.

Thanks again! :smile:

However... would you consider it theoretically possible to have the earth’s population and civilization’s structure at a point where suffering was greatly diminished from where it generally is now? Such that antinatalism could be perceived as a relative strategy and position, rather than an absolute and inflexible tenet? If so, I would find the position to be more supportable. But that simply might be due to the fact that I consider absolutes to be the realm of the gods, which humans only deal with indirectly, existing as relative beings in a relative world. (More tangled tangents, sorry). — 0 thru 9

I'm not sure how this would be employed. The main theme of philosophical pessimism is that structural suffering does not go away. That might be a defining characteristic of philosophical pessimism vs. let's say a utilitarianism or simple hedonism. But, I guess if it actually did "improve things" in a contingent way, that would be a good outcome.

To ignore the foundations in order to praise the steeple. And by the way (as a comment on your point), there have been numerous instances of animals displaying the behavioral symptoms of depression, not surprisingly in captivity. Weight gain or loss, reduced activity, solitary tendencies, etc. No one can get into their mind of course but the behavior is analogous to that of humans, in this case at least. And that we “can’t get into their mind” is significant too. We just do not know for certain what their mental and spiritual experience is really like. — 0 thru 9

But the steeple is where existential awareness lies. This is why I think the depression example doesn't work here. Animals may get depressed in a way- but its context-dependent. They don't know they are depressed. There is no self-awareness. That's why I say humans are the only ones who can get existentially depressed.

I wanted to say, thank you for being considerate and obeying the principle of charity in this discussion.

Yes, second that. Thank you . :up:

:up: Wow, thanks! That’s really nice, guys. Always appreciate your thought-provoking posts, agree or disagree. Gotta go now, think I got something in my eye... :cry:

This is all very true. I remember thinking this myself. When I was 18 and would eat none stop and wish hunder didnt exist. Wishing making money wasnt so hard and how hard it is to find decent work. Life is a hard thing and while some might be long term planners we are constantly burdened with our immediate needs.

It’s not just that making a living is hard. It’s that we are forced to deal at all in the first place. There is no way around with dealing with our own existence.

Seems to be a relevant article. From aeon.co:

https://aeon.co/essays/do-people-have-a-moral-duty-to-have-children-if-they-can

Just skimmed it. Will give it more attention later.

Seems to be a relevant article. From aeon.co:

https://aeon.co/essays/do-people-have-a-moral-duty-to-have-children-if-they-can

Just skimmed it. Will give it more attention later. — 0 thru 9

The author of the article at your link writes:

We’ve seen that it’s important to distinguish first-personal from third-personal morality: questions of what I should choose to do myself, versus what others can expect or demand of me. A personal decision could be private, in the sense that it should be screened off from the moral scrutiny or criticism of third parties, while leaving room to raise ethical questions from the first-personal perspective of an individual seeking moral guidance.

I've gotten the impression that Shopenhauer1 and Darthbaracuda are applying the third-personal morality standard to having children. Maybe I'm wrong about that. That would make a difference in my attitude toward their positions.

That whole article relies on faulty premises. There is a hidden understanding of the author that there is a debt individuals owe humanity. A debt owed from a birth not able to be granted. I don't consider not committing suicide assenting to a contract of owing humanity.. rather callous view if it is even held by anyone. People don't have to carry anything forward, least of all providing a baby. This is using individuals for society's end. Individual humans don't owe a vague "humanity", especially the sacrifice of delivering a new person to its doorstep. Morality goes down to the level of the individual, not abstract concepts such as Truth, Humanity, Posterity, Progress, and other slogans thrown around to justify having more individual humans.

Also not considered by the author is structural suffering altogether. Why bring new people into the world? Well, certainly no person exists before their birth, so it's not for their good. The presumption is a future person will retroactively enjoy life and thus want to have been created. However, life has a number of systemic suffering that is independent of someone's particular contingent experience.

1) Life is aggressively absurd. It is mainly repetitive acts of survival, maintenance, and dealing with our own restlessness. To do to do to do.

2) We are always dealing with our own existence. There is no choice to shut down (except perhaps sleep). There is a constant need to have to choose this or that decision or action. Again, this is related to the above survival and our restless being.

3) We are always in a state of lack. We lack the amusement of this or that, the entertainment of so and so, and the engagement of blah and blah.

4) The individual vs. the given. The individual's needs and wants bumps against the demands of the physical and social world. There is always conflict in this.

One of the main points with all this is prior to an individual's birth, there is no need for that individual to experience anything.

Another point to make about this article. Most antinatalists don't argue for any forced choice. It is like vegetarianism. While some people think it would be ethically not good to eat animals, they are not going to force this view which is too much in the grey zone of ethical consideration. Most morality works like this outside some of the big ones. So to say that antinatalism forces others or interferes in other people's lives, that would be a straw man. It is a point of view people can consider or not consider. That's it.