As I have already said, you don't get to determine what this thread is about - the thread's title does that. And it is about whether procreating is ethical.

You can't refute arguments by being bored by them. There are lots of boring, but good arguments out there.

Now, as you're exclusively interested in what bearing global warming has on this, I have already said what I believe (and you have not engaged with it). Namely, that if it is prima facie wrong to do anything that warms the planet, then it is definitely wrong to procreate as the more of us there are, the warming the planet will be. There - a simple and boring point.

Note too, that it is definitely 'off topic' to go on and on about how 'off topic' you perceive someone's posts to be.

And you cannot understand any of the contents of the Quran or any other religious text until one applies one's reason to it. So reason is the boss of bosses - the ultimate and only true answerer of questions. — Bartricks

Well no, that is a repeat of the ancient, 10th century Mutazili heresy:

Muʿtazilites believe that good and evil are not always determined by revealed scripture or interpretation of scripture, but they are rational categories that could be "established through unaided reason";[6][9][10][11] because knowledge is derived from reason; reason, alongside scripture, was the "final arbiter" in distinguishing right from wrong.

Furthermore, religious scriptures do not contain hypothetical imperatives, in which you have to follow arrows to distill morality. They are categorical only. Islamic jurisprudence is axiomatic from a categorical Quran and Sunnah:

Principles of Islamic jurisprudence, also known as Uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه‎, lit. roots of fiqh), are traditional methodological principles used in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) for deriving the rulings of Islamic law (sharia). [...] This interpretive apparatus is brought together under the rubric of ijtihad, which refers to a jurist's exertion in an attempt to arrive at a ruling on a particular question.

Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, [idʒ.tihaːd]; lit. physical or mental effort, expended in a particular activity)[1] is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question.

The epistemic domain of Islamic law is axiomatic from scripture. It is not possible to meaningfully derive any conclusion in an axiomatic domain without accepting axioms first.

Namely, that if it is prima facie wrong to do anything that warms the planet, then it is definitely wrong to procreate as the more of us there are, the warming the planet will be. There - a simple and boring point. — Bartricks

I don't disagree with that simplistic point per se at all, as boring as it might be. Of course you also have to allow that some people are, rightly or wrongly, (I would say wrongly) skeptical that we are inducing planetary warming. Also, someone might think that we need to keep reproducing to keep the economy going, because if the economy collapses the suffering will be very great indeed and since (it might be further argued) global warming is already inevitable the only possibility to reverse it would be a technological fix that will certainly not happen if the economy collapses.

Note too, that it is definitely 'off topic' to go on and on about how 'off topic' you perceive someone's posts to be. — Bartricks

But I haven't "gone on and on about it", I have just responded a few times to your unreasonable assertions that you were on topic, when you obviously weren't.

Now this is also off-topic.

Your case for antinatalism seems weak to me. Obviously I am an anti-natalist - I think procreating is one of the most despicable things most people will do - but you seem to misunderstand the case for it.

I don't think that our lives are full of misery. Far from it: I think most lives contain more pleasure than pain (even the misery-filled lives of those who procreate). The point, though, is that it is wrong to impose things on others without their prior consent, other things being equal. And furthermore, it is wrong to be the kind of person who wants to be loved unconditionally, and it is wrong to make others love you unconditionally, and so on.

So my case appeals to both Kantian and Virtue-ethics considerations.

you're trying to derail the discussion so that it becomes about what is and isn't off topic. Stop it - YOU are the only one who is off topic here.

Why don't you say what you think, rather than telling me about what others might say?

If everyone stopped procreating tomorrow the economy would boom. Procreation is bad for the economy. How on earth is it good for it?

Now this is also off-topic. — Janus

Well, you need something as a starting point; anything really.

Imagine as a thought exercise a centuries-old moral scripture that says to its followers that they should not have children. One major problem will be that, without future followers, the moral scripture will become unused and just some kind of historical curiosum. So, in a sense, this moral scripture simply would seek to destroy its own relevance. Hence, the historical non-existence of such moral scripture.

What bearing does that have on the ethics of it?

Where will the upcoming workers be found? We could have better immigration and child adoption policies, I suppose, but I don't see that as being very likely. The economy will never boom again unless we find a cheap alternative source of energy to replace fossil fuels. The reason we need procreation is that the global economy will collapse unless it grows. If we had a more sustainable economy that would not be the case, but how to get there without stifling growth and collapsing the present economy? I say it would take global cooperation; do you think that is at all likely to happen?

Also, what you've said is false - it's entirely possible for a text that promotes antinatalism to survive through every generation until the last. If people are persuaded by it, they'll not procreate. But that doesn't prevent the children of those who were not persuaded by it being persuaded by it.

Recognizing derailment is the only way to return to being on-track.

OK, but I don't see what that has to do with the issue of having or not having children in view of global warming.

You're confusing 'lasting economy' with 'good for the economy'. I take it that what's good for the economy is equivalent to what is in the economic interests of its members.

Well, if everyone stopped procreating tomorrow, most of us would be better off. Children aren't productive. They cost the economy money -vast,vast amounts - for the first 18 years of their lives. How is it good for the economy to have a vast fund of people who are costing us all money?

Take the economy of me and my partner. We don't have kids. We're far wealthier than those of a similar age who do have kids. And both work full time - because we don't have kids - and we have a large household income as a result and no costly children to have to spend it on.

it would be very bad for the conomy of me and my partner if we had kids. We'd be poorer.

Well, now apply that to everyone else. If everyone else stopped procreating, they'd all get wealthier. And they'd have lots of leisure time in which to spend their money.

So, if everyone stopped procreating we'd have more workers (because more people could work), more money and more leisure in which to spend it.

What you're focussing on is just keeping the economy going for as long as possible. That's misguided.

No it isn't.

without using reason, explain how I'm wrong.

So, what happens when everyone wants to retire and there are not enough young people to fill the vacancies?

What you're focussing on is just keeping the economy going for as long as possible. That's misguided. — Bartricks

No, I'm not focusing on that at all. The problem is how to make the transition form a growth economy to a sustainable economy. From the point of view of global warming it would be better if the world economy collapses as soon as possible. But that would result in untold human misery, and the people who survive would not stop procreating because contraceptive technologies would quickly become unavailable.

Note, THIS is to appeal to reason:

1. If someone says something that contradicts something in the Quran, then they are wrong
2. Bartricks has said something that contradicts something in the Quran
3. Therefore, Bartricks is wrong

Now, that's an unsound argument - its first premise is obviously false to anyone who is not a Muslim - but it is valid. And so in making such an argument you are still appealing to reason.

Reason, like I say, is the ultimate court of appeal in all things and you ignore her at your peril.

That problem will afflict the final generation alone, and they'll have had plenty of time to make provision for it.
You and I don't need to worry.

Note too that this thread is about the 'ethics' of procreation - so, is it ethical for me to have a kid out of need to have someone to care for me when I'm old, especially when in doing so I burden that kid with exactly the same problem?
No, I don't think that's fair at all.

That problem will afflict the final generation alone, and they'll have had plenty of time to make provision for it.
You and I don't need to worry. — Bartricks

The situation may well be so dire that no "provision can be made for it", not to mention that there might not be anything like "enough time".

We may have no need to worry for ourselves, but focusing on that small positive shows a rather selfish attitude.

OK, but I don't see what that has to do with the issue of having or not having children in view of global warming — Janus

That is hypothetical (goal-seeking) morality, which is a practice that Immanuel Kant famously decried in his Critique of Practical Reason. The short story is that hypothetical morality does not work.

No, but it's ethical for you to rely on other people's kids to support you, right?

You asked me how it would be good for the economy. I explained. You ask me about a problem that would afflict the final generation alone. I explained that they would indeed face a problem, but it is one they'd have a lifetime to solve. You then said that this is selfish. No, it is just an explanation of why not procreating is good for the economy.
As to what's selfish - well, forcing someone else to exist so that they can provide for you in your dotage and then saddling them with exactly the same problem....now THAT'S selfish!

No, where did I say that?

Note, THIS is to appeal to reason:

1. If someone says something that contradicts something in the Quran, then they are wrong
2. Bartricks has said something that contradicts something in the Quran
3. Therefore, Bartricks is wrong

Now, that's an unsound argument - its first premise is obviously false to anyone who is not a Muslim - but it is valid. And so in making such an argument you are still appealing to reason.

Reason, like I say, is the ultimate court of appeal in all things and you ignore her at your peril. — Bartricks

Well, no, it works differently:

Assuming that Bartricks accepts the Quran, if he says something that contradicts the Quran, Bartricks is wrong.

Bartricks probably does not accept the Quran. Still, my remark was about how people who accept it, would react; not necessarily Bartricks.

You can try to find any moral scripture that advocates that its followers should not have children, deprive it from future followers, and hence make itself over time irrelevant. I can guarantee that you will not find such moral scripture with a history of having been in active use for centuries.

The idea of a documented starting point for morality, X, just places morality in the axiomatic epistemic domain. In fact, Immanuel Kant already did that in his Critique of Practical Reason. So, not using any documented X at all is not viable in that view.

I don't rely on anyone to support me. I pay far more in tax than I receive in benefits. Unlike many parents.
The fact is I am currently forced, by the tax system, into subsidising other people's idiotic and unethical procreative acts. My taxes pay for schools and health care for other people's children. Parents should pay for those things, not me.
Again, I am not the selfish one here. I am supporting others. No-one is supporting me.

The selfish ones are parents who have kids for their own ethically reprehensible reasons and then expect others to subsidise their upkeep.

The children, of course, are the innocent parties in all of this. But parents owe their children a living, not me. I'll pick up the tab if necessary, for it is not the children's fault they exist. But other things being equal, the parents owe their kids everything.

Again, you're just presupposing that a 'good' economy keeps on going. That's absurd. What's better - an economy that keeps going for a million years but in which everyone is horribly poor, or an economy that lasts 100 years in which the majority of people are very well off?

Surely the latter. That's what stopping procreating would give us. And it isn't as if the absence of the economy would be bad for anyone - no-one would exist at that point, by hypothesis.

Consider: at the moment there are two massive groups who are unproductive and cost us all lots and lots and lots of money: children and the elderly. They produce nothing, and they cost a ton. They're supported by the largest group - the group in the middle. Us (assuming you're not elderly).

Now, if everyone stopped procreating, what would happen to the size of those groups? Well, one of them - the children - would rapidly reduce in size, as no more children are being produced and all of those that have been produced move into the productive central group - the one that produces all the money that the other two groups depend on.

Eventually the child group will disappear altogether, at which point we'll have a massive central group (for we are in that group the longest) and an elderly population. But that's better - that's a better situation economically than one in which you have the elderly AND the children.

Note too, all the time and money previously wasted on children can now be dedicated to the elderly. It is only the last generation that would have a problem - but, as I say, they'd know it was coming and could make provision.
Plus, it wouldn't be that bad. The real problem with being elderly is being elderly and that's something you have regardless of how many children there are around.