I didn't say anything about sperm and eggs, though. — Terrapin Station

I did. Birth is modifying sperm and eggs so I'm not saying this:

You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things, but of course that would introduce a bunch of nonintuitive upshots that you don't want to introduce. — Terrapin Station

Because it's not materials that are in question, it's living things. And we both agree modifying living things is morally considerable

I did. — khaled

That's fine. But you just argued that I said that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things. I did not say that.

Well, because you seem to imply that life is not worth living because it contains harm in it — Wallows

I'm not. I'm implying life is not worth starting because it contains harm in it. If I was blind I wouldn't kill myself but I'd rather not be blind

Being blind is worth living through but it is not worth starting

Does life then only make sense in some highly idealized utopia where no suffering is to be experienced? — Wallows

I don't get how life can "make sense" or "not make sense". Do you mean "make sense to start". In that case yes, it would only make sense to start new life in a utopia and even then it would not be an obligation.

It would be like donating toys to an orphanage. Sure the kids would love it but you don't have to do it. Aka it is morally good to do, not morally bad to not do. Same with having children in a utopia

That's fine. But you just argued that I said that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things. I did not say that. — Terrapin Station

No I did not

1- Sperm and eggs are living organisms not materials
2- You realize genetic modification is done on sperm and eggs right? Not on "the baby". So if you want to consider sperm and eggs materials then we're BOTH saying it is morally problematic ot do things to materials that could turn into living things

Dude, at least be honest.

You quoted me saying, "You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things"

You responded with "I did."

And then you said, "You did, too."

You responded with "I did." — Terrapin Station

Sorry that was a misunderstanding. The "I did" was a response to when you said "But I said nothing about sperm and eggs"

"But I said nothing about sperm and eggs"
"I did"


Wait it's literally quoted right there m8

Sorry that was a misunderstanding. The "I did" was a response to when you said "But I said nothing about sperm and eggs" — khaled

That was after the post in question.

(Perfect opportunity for you to bring up block time, by the way.)

Why don't you just say that you're "against procreation, not because it does something to someone else against their consent, and not because it 'causes' suffering, but because it creates people who are bound to occasionally suffer in some way or another," and either you consider that suffering sufficiently weighty to suggest avoiding it altogether, or you only care about suffering and its elimination, regardless of how slight the suffering might be compared to non-suffering, regardless of its exact character?

If you were to put it that way, the only counter to it would be for someone like me to note that I don't feel the same way about suffering that you do. I don't feel that it's the only thing that matters and/or I don't feel that it outweighs other things to an extent to suggest avoiding it altogether.

. . . I guess maybe the problem with that is that you don't just want to announce your stance, you want to persuade other people to have the same stance. But for someone like me, it's pretty much an impossible hurdle, especially since I don't do principle-oriented ethical stances, and especially since I don't have any ethical stance that's simply based on the ideas of "suffering" or "harm" per se. If I think something is a problem, it is because of a specific scenario, a specific set of properties that obtain in that situation, and for me, I also like to significantly "err" on the side of permissibility, so that some things I only see as a problem if they're severe enough--which is why I don't think that any physical violation is an issue if it doesn't have lingering--at least a few days--non-microscopically-observable (physical) effects for example.

I did that in the last post.

You would be applying it to specific instances, when at the procreational decision-making level, it prevents ALL harm for a future life. Again, self-evident that being born causes harm, and procreation causes people to be born. — schopenhauer1

If you were to put it that way, the only counter to it would be for someone like me to note that I don't feel the same way about suffering that you do. I don't feel that it's the only thing that matters and/or I don't feel that it outweighs other things to an extent to suggest avoiding it altogether. — Terrapin Station

Even with your very callous and indifferent way of looking at suffering (for how other people may experience it versus you, let's say), YOUR decision is affecting SOMEONE else, not just your own life. That is the major difference, you often seem to bypass. You seem to think that the parent's projection is the child's experience. Of course, you and I know it is not. You can do the ad populum thing, but even a small percentage of people who don't want to go through life were brought tremendous collateral damage in their own perspective. The antinatalist is saying that no one is actually deprived of anything prior to birth, so there wouldn't be "losing out" for an actual person. No one is kept "hostage" from being born, so to say.

If I think something is a problem, it is because of a specific scenario, a specific set of properties that obtain in that situation, and for me, I also like to significantly "err" on the side of permissibility, so that some things I only see as a problem if they're severe enough--which is why I don't think that any physical violation is an issue if it doesn't have lingering--at least a few days--non-microscopically-observable (physical) effects for example. — Terrapin Station

I think this is dubious. We know that life can contain various amounts of harm to someone, much of it unforeseen as to the amounts and kinds. Even if you don't believe in the structural suffering like "Dukka" that @Inyenzibrought up, and we are just going by crass utilitarian versions of what is defined as "harm" (usually immediately experienced physical or psychological harm), you do not know how much that would be or what their experience of it, or their subjective view of it would be. We know that it is not yours, and that you can't program the person to be like yours, even if you think you can sufficiently "educate" and "habituate" them to your view of it. That is the height of hubris as well.

The major point in all this is that life is the pre-condition, the platform for all this suffering to take place. We are just saying it is good to take away the platform, and that any reason to go ahead and procreate above and beyond that is putting an agenda above a person's experience of suffering, which is using someone to fulfill that agenda while not considering the harm foisted upon that potential person.

A lot of your post isn't clear and/or it's off-base.

Even with your very callous and indifferent way of looking at suffering (for how other people may experience it versus you, let's say) — schopenhauer1

So starting with this, my view doesn't ignore other persons' opinions. Most people don't think that only suffering matters, and most aren't so miserable that suffering greatly outweighs everything else.

Every sentence in your post has something that needs to be addressed, so I'm not going to do it all at once. One thing at a time.

So starting with this, my view doesn't ignore other persons' opinions. Most people don't think that only suffering matters, and most aren't so miserable that suffering greatly outweighs everything else. — Terrapin Station

So you're the arbiter and interpreter of what most people think?

Every sentence in your post has something that needs to be addressed, so I'm not going to do it all at once. One thing at a time. — Terrapin Station

Ha, same for you

So you're the arbiter and interpreter of what most people think? — schopenhauer1

Just an observer. You must think it's possible to observe this stuff, via reports from people, otherwise what in the world would you be addressing?

Ha, same for you — schopenhauer1

Good to know that we'll be keeping things succinct and focused.

Just an observer. You must think it's possible to observe this stuff, via reports from people, otherwise what in the world would you be addressing? — Terrapin Station

Besides the fact that people report more positively than actual lived moments day to day, besides the fact that people often identify with that which makes them.suffer, knowing nothing but what they are already used to, and fearing death...Focusing just on people who report negatively..there is a huge cost in creating unhappy person. Harm was created for that person. There is no cost to someone else, by not creating happy person.

However, I dont even buy this line of reasoning. Rather, as I've stated many times before, it's the fact that people are harmed in the first place, not their self report of those challenges. A gain, I use the analogy of the obstacle course, foisting an obstacle course on someone else because you enjoy watching them navigate it, and the only way out is suicide, is wrong EVEN if the victim eventually finds meaning in or identified positively with the obstacle course. Forcing challenges for someone else, when no challenges needed to be faced by literally anyone, is never right.

Good to know that we'll be keeping things succinct and focused. — Terrapin Station

Well if that's code for focusing on red herrings, nope.

What happened to one thing at a time?

Besides the fact that people report more positively than actual lived moments day to day, — schopenhauer1

What? You're saying you know their actual experiences better than what they're reporting as their experiences?

What? You're saying you know their actual experiences better than what they're reporting as their experiences? — Terrapin Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle
Real phenomena.

More like I'm saying, people don't even know that they have a tendency for selective positive recall.

So first, that's about accuracy of recall.

What would it have to do with a claim that you know better than other people (per their reports) whether they've had positive or negative experiences?

So first, that's about accuracy of recall. — Terrapin Station

Right..so restating what I said.

What would it have to do with a claim that you know better than other people (per their reports) whether they've have positive or negative experiences? — Terrapin Station

I'm not saying I know better, but that people reporting positive overall evaluations, often don't recall accurately their bad experiences when making those evaluations.

I'm not saying I know better, but that people reporting positive overall evaluations, often don't recall accurately their bad experiences when making those evaluations. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but the only way we can know that is by the person (a) stating that experience F was negative in their evaluation, while experience G was positive, then (b) recalling experience G in much more detail than experience F.

That tells us nothing about "reporting more positively than actual lived moments day to day."

Okay, but the only way we can know that is by the person (a)stating that experience F was negative in their evaluation, while experience G was positive, then (b) them recalling experience G in much more detail than experience F.

That tells us nothing about "reporting more positively than actual lived moments day to day." — Terrapin Station

Um, what you stated was the same thing.

Let's take Day A for Joe. Say that he only has 10 experiences for that day. While they're occurring, he evaluates them re positive/negative as follows:

experience 1 - positive
experience 2 - negative
experience 3 - negative
experience 4 - positive
experience 5 - negative
experience 6 - negative
experience 7 - negative
experience 8 - negative
experience 9 - positive
experience 10 - negative

So then we have two ideas:

(1) What "reporting more positively than actual lived moments day to day" says is that when we ask Joe at some later point to evaluate Day A overall, say, he says that Day A was positive--even though at the time, he would have said that more of his experiences that day were negative.

(2) What the Pollyanna principle says is that when we ask Joe about his experiences for Day A, he tells us that he had three positive experiences and seven negative, and when we ask him to tell us about those experiences, he remembers the three experiences that he reported as positive in a lot more detail.

Re (1), the only way to know what's being claimed there is to know that at the time, Joe said he had three positive experiences and seven negative experiences, but at a later time, he said that the day was overall positive for him (where he's forgetting some of the negative experiences and he's not simply reporting a weighting while remembering the 3/7 split).

Re (2), the way we know it is that we ask Joe to talk about experiences and say whether they were positive or negative, and then we note how much relative detail he gives, or can give, about each.

Ok.. sure. You definitely have to go deeper than the "overall" summed evaluation someone gives you is the point. Thus, "life is good" is often wrought with internal biases that distort events of the time versus remembered. Also, I think the question itself is biased, as it really doesn't allow for nuance and will go with the response that aligns most with societal cues.

I would say you are a partial cause for having them in the first place. "I tried my best but the world sucks bucko" doesn't relieve you of responsibility. — khaled

At worst a little responsible for their suffering , and greatly responsible for their joy (in the case where I do my best to bring happiness to the child and it works).

If the child tells me he is happy to be alive, and is thankful to me, and tells me that he suffers because of some other people and not because of me, how can I be construed as being responsible for his suffering? The individual is the one who decides who to blame. It seems to me that you're blaming your parents for your suffering, but plenty of people do not blame their parents, they blame other people.

Solution A to suffering: Don't have the child
Result: No suffering (good) and no pleasure (not bad because you don't owe future children pleasure)
Chance of success: 100%

Solution B to suffering: Prevent every instance of suffering by creating a utopia
Result: No suffering (good) and a lot of pleasure (good)
Chance of success: idk but I don't think it's that high
What happens if it fails: Suffering (bad)

So i'd rather go with solution A — khaled

I disagree with the contrast between suffering and pleasure, I would rather talk of joy or happiness in opposition to suffering. Because some people (potentially many, including me) don't see pleasure as worth living for, but they see joy or happiness as worth living for, to me pleasure is not the same as joy.

And then I don't agree with the asymmetry that "no suffering" is "good" whereas "no joy" is "not bad", in my view "joy" is "good" and "no joy" is "bad". I don't see why we would owe "no suffering" to future children but not "joy".

Even if I lived like a hermit that won't spare a single animal's life, or at least the chances of it doing so are extremely low. It would only add to food loss and reduce the amount of services I could have provided other people. On the other hand, me not having a child CAN (didn't say it would) spare someone an entire lifetime of suffering. And I am not one for taking risks for others without their consent, so I won't have children. — khaled

You apply a double standard there. On the one hand you focus on the positive experiences you can provide other people, on the other hand you focus on the negative experiences you can provide to a child.

You take risks for others without their consent every second of your life. If you rationalize taking risks for others without their consent by saying that you can give them positive experiences (by providing services to them), you can rationalize having children in the same exact way.

If you justify taking risks for others without their consent by saying that you need to do so to survive, many people could apply the same principle to say that they need to have children to survive through the genes that their children will carry. Some people so badly need to have a child that they can't survive if they don't have one.

I don't see how you can get out of that double standard.

It doesn't matter how much I like a job, I can't force you to work it. — khaled

Life is not a job, that's only how you personally feel about it.

Again, I just don't see that an action that risks harming people to the point of them committing suicide without consent from them and only to satiate one's own desires is moral. — khaled

And yet spreading antinatalism and being successful in making parents believe that they are bad people for having children could precisely harm them to the point of them committing suicide, only to satiate your own desires.

"life is good" is often wrought with internal biases that distort events of the time versus remembered. — schopenhauer1

The point remains that to know this, we'd need data about persons' evaluations at the two different time periods in question--the (1) scenario in my post above.

If we had the data in question, and it suggested what you're hoping/claiming it would suggest, we'd also need an argument as to why the evaluation at time T1 has precedence over the evaluation at time T2, rather than those simply being two different evaluations, where it's not the case that one is correct and the other is incorrect.

Sorry that was a misunderstanding. The "I did" was a response to when you said "But I said nothing about sperm and eggs"
— khaled

That was after the post in question.

(Perfect opportunity for you to bring up block time, by the way.) — Terrapin Station

First off what's "block time"

Secondly, I don't know why you're wasting so much energy on this but look at the comment that's putting you in such a tizzy. I clearly quoted you saying "But I said nothing about sperm and eggs" and UNDER THAT. It says "I did". I never once said this:

That's fine. But you just argued that I said that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things. I did not say that. — Terrapin Station

Please stop putting words in my mouth

Secondly, I don't know why you're wasting so much energy on this — khaled

It matters to me whether we're having an honest conversation in good faith, and whether we're "with it" enough to be able to do so sensibly, coherently, etc.

The entire post in question reads:
===============================================================
↪Terrapin Station

You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things — Terrapin Station


I did. And so did you. You said genetically modifying babies to suffer is bad. Genetic modification and birth are both things you do to organic materials that turn into living things.
===============================================================

It was only four posts AFTER that that this was introduced by you: "Sperm and eggs aren't living things?"

So the "I did" wasn't in response to something about sperm and eggs.

Why don't you just say that you're "against procreation, not because it does something to someone else against their consent, and not because it 'causes' suffering, but because it creates people who are bound to occasionally suffer in some way or another," and either you consider that suffering sufficiently weighty to suggest avoiding it altogether, or you only care about suffering and its elimination, regardless of how slight the suffering might be compared to non-suffering, regardless of its exact character? — Terrapin Station

Because that's not what I am saying. I am saying that birth is a direct cause to suffering. And yes I am saying a cause can optain without its effect if the effect requires multiple causes. Ex: A door requires two keys A and B. Turning A is not the cause of the door openeing. Turning B is not the cause of the door opening. Turning A AND B is the cause of the door opening. In the same way: Being able to perceive/experience suffering is not the cause of suffering. The stimuli that cause suffering if perceived are not the cause of suffering. Being able to experience suffering AND there being a stimuli for suffering are the causes of suffering.

Let me ask you something: In your ethical system how is the following situation wrong:

A person kidnaps you at night completely painlessly and without any damage done then puts you into a torture chamber. You wake up, he gives you a button and says "Press this button and you will die" and then proceeds to torture you. Now you have two options

A: Die
B: Severe pain

I said before:

If you are presented with the option to pick between A, B, C and D and you pick C using your free will, you were caused to pick C by two things

1- Your free will
2- The fact that C was an option in the first place — khaled

to which you replied:

If I was caused to pick C by the fact that it was an option in the first place, then how could I have picked another option?

You're not saying that a cause can obtain without the effect in question, are you? — Terrapin Station

So, in this scenario, if we're going to assume you have free will, you're ultimately responsible for dying or experiencing severe pain. Thus it cannot be said that the kidnapper is causing you severe pain while torturing you because, ultimately, it is your choice not to pick option A that is causing you this severe pain. It is POSSIBLE for the torturer to attempt to torture you WITHOUT it happeing (since option A is available) so how can you say the torturer is causing any physical deformations or pain? You're not saying a cause can obtain without its effect are you?

I'll get to the rest later, first:

A door requires two keys A and B. Turning A is not the cause of the door openeing. Turning B is not the cause of the door opening. Turning A AND B is the cause of the door opening. In the same way: Being able to perceive/experience suffering is not the cause of suffering. The stimuli that cause suffering if perceived are not the cause of suffering. Being able to experience suffering AND there being a stimuli for suffering are the causes of suffering. — khaled

In a similar way, wouldn't you say that being conceived and/or born is not the cause of suffering with respect to breaking your leg when you're older?

It is a partial cause. It shouldn't be ignored. If key A and key B opened the door to some sort of monster or something I would say turning key A is problematic on its own because it provides the conditions for opening the door and doing harm to someone.

Do you consider the big bang a partial cause?