But... I have realized that antinatalism is, in essence, an extreme form of psychological projection onto an unborn and unknown entity.

What do I mean by this? Well, we all have visions of the future, or perhaps the antinatalist has an overabundance of concern for the future (anxiety, dread, angst). Those of us who have been mired in their misery, unjustifiably so in many cases, have taken their experiences and have created a fictional entity that is an unborn child. — Wallows

So the antinatalist is psychologically projecting his own misery onto the unborn. But the antinatalist was himself once that very unborn child. The projection is therefore neither fictional, nor the (at least potential) quality of life of that child unknown, since the antinatalist is directly aware from his own case.
The quality of life of a yet to be born child is not a totally unknowable, transcendent mystery. As humans, we know the harms (and potential harms) potential humans will face, and we can choose to mitigate these entirely (at least in our own children's sake) by not reproducing.

Even if we grant the argument, why reproduce if there is a potential for a child to grow and become someone so miserable he projects his own misery onto the unborn, denying and regretting life? Antinatalists exist, therefore antinatalism?

The unborn aren't suffering. Those born are either suffering, will suffer, or have the potential to suffer. Every human struggles, suffers, ages and dies. You can call this psychological projection, but as a human I have some stake on the claim of what it's like to be one.

Thoughts? — Wallows

Is it Groundhog Day?

Really listen. — leo

But, what is the antinatalist really telling us?

So the antinatalist is psychologically projecting his own misery onto the unborn. But the antinatalist was himself once that very unborn child. — Inyenzi

But, that doesn't give him the right to say that the unborn fetus should not live!

Is it Groundhog Day? — S

Wallows...

But, what is the antinatalist really telling us? — Wallows

In my view, he tells us about his suffering and how he views his life.

The answer is "yes," if you were in power, you would prevent other people from having children. And that is the difference between an idea that is misguided and one that is evil. — T Clark

I don't think it is at all evil to prevent someone having children. You are problem imagining some scenario like selective eugenics and genocide.

Lots of people have their children taken off them after they are born because they are unfit parents. There is not just one scenario where people intervene in reproduction.

Your options are... be beholden to the forces of this behemoth technological economic giant and get by with the six or so "goods" to overlook the cirucular productive forces that we are forced into, or do the following- kill yourself, become a part of the underclass (homeless), become some sort of monk/hermit. — schopenhauer1

You and I, and many others, have gone back and forth on this many times. Many of us, most of us, don't see things this way. And yet you are unwilling to accept our experience of the world. We like it here. It's worth it. That's the primary reason it's hard to take your position seriously.

Despite his bitter protestations, I'm bringing in Bitter Crank because I think he might shed some light on how we are circular forces of production.. He will shrink away from total pessimism on this.. but I think he has some wise insights on the whole shebang. — schopenhauer1

This is a great example of the disrespect you show other people. As for @Bitter Crank, notwithstanding his views on the economic system, he maintains a humane and balanced understanding of the benefits and costs of living. You ignore that because it doesn't support your position.

But, your position is inherently based on the subjective experience of suffering or strife, which you try to rationalize into an objective brute fact about existence. Is this at least correct? — Wallows

I don't think this whole "you're an anti-natalist because you're depressed" argument is a legitimate one. Whatever the psychological basis of @schopenhauer1's beliefs is, he is right to expect us to argue the merits of his ideas.

It seems clear to me that, to a large extent, all of us develop our understanding of how the world works based on our temperament and positive and negative experiences in the world. I try hard to see those influences in my own thoughts and take them into account when trying to understand the beliefs of others.

The unborn aren't suffering. Those born are either suffering, will suffer, or have the potential to suffer. Every human struggles, suffers, ages and dies. You can call this psychological projection, but as a human I have some stake on the claim of what it's like to be one. — Inyenzi

I have no problem with this statement of the issue, but anti-natalists, at least as represented here on the forum, take it a lot further. They draw harsh conclusions based on that evaluation, propose a draconian solution, and, some of them at least, want to inflict that solution on others who disagree with them.

But, that doesn't give him the right to say that the unborn fetus should not live! — Wallows

Of course he has the right to say that. He just doesn't have the right to inflict his judgment on the rest of us.

Lots of people have their children taken off them after they are born because they are unfit parents. There is not just one scenario where people intervene in reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

I wasn't talking about specific situations that apply to a relatively small number of children, and, if I understand correctly, that's not what you are talking about either. You are talking about a broad consideration of the population at large. Unless I missed it, you have still not stated you would not stop people from having children if you had the power.

I don't think this whole "you're an anti-natalist because you're depressed" argument is a legitimate one. Whatever the psychological basis of schopenhauer1's beliefs is, he is right to expect us to argue the merits of his ideas. — T Clark

Of course he has the right to say that. He just doesn't have the right to inflict his judgment on the rest of us. — T Clark

Well stated. That was what I was trying to convey :up:

I have no problem with this statement of the issue, but anti-natalists, at least as represented here on the forum, take it a lot further. They draw harsh conclusions based on that evaluation, propose a draconian solution, and, some of them at least, want to inflict that solution on others who disagree with them. — T Clark

Antinatalism is the best solution for all the problems I have laid out over the years. It is draconian to force others into a system, without caring that this creates collateral damage. I'm going to be a broken record because some records are classics:

I. Keep in mind that no actual person is deprived if not born. However, some actual person will always experience harm if born (the Benatar asymmetry argument).

II. Being born means moving into a constantly deprived state. In other words, prior to birth, there is no actual need for anything, after birth, needs and wants are a constant (Schopenhauer's deprivational theory of suffering).

III. Life presents challenges to overcome and burdens to deal with. When putting a new person into the world, you are creating a situation where they now HAVE TO deal with the challenges and burdens. It does not matter the extent or kind of adversity, the fact that a parent forced a new person to deal with challenges and burdens of life in the first place, is not good. Forcing something to play a game that cannot be escaped, or to burden someone with tasks that cannot be escaped, including enduring one's daily life challenges, is not right, no matter how much people later "accept" or "identify with" the game they were forced into (i.e. the "common man's view" used so much to counter the antinatalists "extremism").

IV. Contingent harm is harm that is situational. You simply do not know how much harms there are in life for a certain person. This creates huge collateral damage that was not meant for the child to endure, but he/she must do it nonetheless. Some people will find the "love of their life" others will be loveless for life. Some will struggle to keep food on the table for themselves, others will become highly successful in a career. Having the capacity for achieving one's happiness, does not mean this will occur for any particular person. In fact, if we are to be really real here, the ones that will be successful with much of what most consider "happiness" are using the ones that will fail at this. Why? One cannot know who will be successful or not prior to birth, so you must take chances with peoples' lives to see the actual outcomes.

V. We are used as "technology/progress" advancers by a circular-production system. We rely on the productive forces to make stuff, and are forced into a system where we are constantly producing and forcing others to produce with our consumption. Once this system subsumes everything, there is no escaping being a part of its productive forces. We try to "self-help" people into accepting a "job that you like!!" so that this seems less painful, but we are just extensions of the machines we create. Plastics, chemicals, metals, materials of all kinds, mining, transportation, engine-building, building-building, any damn product in the world, manufacturing, utilities, engineering, etc. etc.

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

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

Yes, and for those of us who remember what a broken record is, I will play my own - Your ideas are fine and you are welcome to them. I disagree with them. I plan to live my life based on how I see things rather than on how you do. As long as you don't plan on restricting my ability to do that, everything is ok.

On the other hand, if you want me to take your ideas seriously and deal with them respectfully, you should consider doing the same for me. A good start would be to acknowledge that your view is only held by a small minority of people and that there are other legitimate ways of seeing things.

As long as you don't plan on restricting my ability to do that, everything is ok. — T Clark

I never advocate forcing restrictions. I liken antinatalism to veganism- you can present your views respectfully, but don't force them. Also, do not bring things up in contexts that are simply meant to hurt people. But I'm on a philosophy forum where many ideas can be shared, some seemingly radical. This is a perfect context for arguing, and honing one's understanding on philosophical and ethical issues. I think you'd at least agree there.

On the other hand, if you want me to take your ideas seriously and deal with them respectfully, you should consider doing the same for me. A good start would be to acknowledge that your view is only held by a small minority of people and that there are other legitimate ways of seeing things. — T Clark

It is held by a minority, I agree. So were many ethical views in the past (the idea of mass conquest, slavery, abuses of all kinds were taken as part of life for the majority in most places). I think one main thing going for philosophy is how it forces us to look at things in different perspectives than we might otherwise see them. Having kids and procreation is taken as a given as something that is positive. I am presenting a different understanding of this. Perhaps by having children, you are imposing something, not creating opportunities for something. Perhaps, we are being imposed upon, and we are continuing this for others. To say, "Suck it up", for those who say life is an imposition, is to do exactly the thing for why people should not be born in the first place.

people cannot choose the historical development and societal institutions/setup that he/she is brought into — schopenhauer1

True. You don't get to choose your parents, the world your ancestors made, or whatever catastrophes will happen once you are born. You also don't get to choose the refined pleasures and cultures and other satisfactions that will be available to you once you are born.

It is also the case that philosophers don't get to choose the rules of the universe into which they were born. In this universe consent was not, is not, and will never be an option for people who do not exist. The not-yet-conceived do not exist.

To the extent that antinatalism is founded on the denial of choice to people who do not exist, it is pointless. Beyond this point (where actual children come into existence) antinatalism begins to have some real value.

People who do exist have choices (up to a point). They can decide whether they will produce children or not. The amount of suffering in the world vs. the amount of pleasure and happiness in the world is something for potential parents to think about. As the human population increases toward 8 billion, as the concentration of CO2, methane, and other green house gases continues to rise; as global warming continues to heat up; as the problem of feeding, clothing, watering, housing, and educating 8, 9, or 10 billion humans becomes more and more problematic; as oceans rise; as glaciers melt; as all sorts of things get a hell of a lot more complicated and difficult; PROSPECTIVE PARENTS would do well to ask them selves, "Just how much 'excess' suffering will the present and future generations have to endure?"

There are quite a few groups around the world working to encourage potential parents to have fewer children. The people who work in population understand that too many people, more than the resources of the world can support healthfully, is a cause of future suffering and something that we can theoretically do something about.

I am pro 'antinatalism' to the extent that I think human population needs to be limited, and actually reduced. We don't have to decide how to reduce our population. Nature is going to solve that problem for us, as she does for any of her children who get to be too numerous for their support systems. She has a suite of options available to knock down excess populations, and as much as we will not enjoy the process even slightly, we are subject to Mother Nature's Final Decisions as much as every other creature.

Well-stated in terms of a moderate antinatalism. What are your views on things I mentioned earlier for reasons?

See below:
I. Keep in mind that no actual person is deprived if not born. However, some actual person will always experience harm if born (the Benatar asymmetry argument).

II. Being born means moving into a constantly deprived state. In other words, prior to birth, there is no actual need for anything, after birth, needs and wants are a constant (Schopenhauer's deprivational theory of suffering).

III. Life presents challenges to overcome and burdens to deal with. When putting a new person into the world, you are creating a situation where they now HAVE TO deal with the challenges and burdens. It does not matter the extent or kind of adversity, the fact that a parent forced a new person to deal with challenges and burdens of life in the first place, is not good. Forcing something to play a game that cannot be escaped, or to burden someone with tasks that cannot be escaped, including enduring one's daily life challenges, is not right, no matter how much people later "accept" or "identify with" the game they were forced into (i.e. the "common man's view" used so much to counter the antinatalists "extremism").

IV. Contingent harm is harm that is situational. You simply do not know how much harms there are in life for a certain person. This creates huge collateral damage that was not meant for the child to endure, but he/she must do it nonetheless. Some people will find the "love of their life" others will be loveless for life. Some will struggle to keep food on the table for themselves, others will become highly successful in a career. Having the capacity for achieving one's happiness, does not mean this will occur for any particular person. In fact, if we are to be really real here, the ones that will be successful with much of what most consider "happiness" are using the ones that will fail at this. Why? One cannot know who will be successful or not prior to birth, so you must take chances with peoples' lives to see the actual outcomes.

V. We are used as "technology/progress" advancers by a circular-production system. We rely on the productive forces to make stuff, and are forced into a system where we are constantly producing and forcing others to produce with our consumption. Once this system subsumes everything, there is no escaping being a part of its productive forces. We try to "self-help" people into accepting a "job that you like!!" so that this seems less painful, but we are just extensions of the machines we create. Plastics, chemicals, metals, materials of all kinds, mining, transportation, engine-building, building-building, any damn product in the world, manufacturing, utilities, engineering, etc. etc.

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

The quality of life of a yet to be born child is not a totally unknowable, transcendent mystery. As humans, we know the harms (and potential harms) potential humans will face, and we can choose to mitigate these entirely (at least in our own children's sake) by not reproducing. — Inyenzi

You don't know what any individual is going to think about what you consider harms, especially relative to things they consider to be positives.

You don't know what any individual is going to think about what you consider harms, especially relative to things they consider to be positives. — Terrapin Station

Nor would it matter, if they weren't born ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Nor would it matter — schopenhauer1

Depends on who you ask. Mattering is something each individual will make an assessment about, and they can't be right or wrong about what does or doesn't matter to them.

Depends on who you ask. Mattering is something each individual will make an assessment about, and they can't be right or wrong about what does or doesn't matter to them. — Terrapin Station

They don't exist. There is no actual person who is deprived here. That is the kicker ;).

They don't exist. — schopenhauer1

Whether something matters is up to the people who do exist. So you can't say something doesn't matter in an unqualified way.

Whether something matters is up to the people who do exist. So you can't say something doesn't matter in an unqualified way. — Terrapin Station

Yep, no mattering for someone who does not exist.

But it might matter to people who do exist. You have to ask them to know.

But it might matter to people who do exist. You have to ask them to know. — Terrapin Station

It.. what is it here? We are talking about potentially having someone who doesn't exist yet.

It.. what is it here? — schopenhauer1

You know what you were talking about with "it" when you wrote "Nor would it matter," don't you?

You know what you were talking about with "it" when you wrote "Nor would it matter," don't you? — Terrapin Station

It doesn't matter.. the assessment of good/bad for something that does not exist.

It doesn't matter.. the assessment of good/bad for something that does not exist. — schopenhauer1

Again, it might matter to people who exist.

Again, it might matter to people who exist. — Terrapin Station

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