If you believe that global warming will cause great suffering, and you believe it is wrong to cause, or even contribute to, greater suffering, then what is hypothetical about that? You could think about the issue in the form that Kant did; "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

If you would say that everyone should procreate in spite of that creating an unsustainable situation then that would contravene Kant's CI, as far as I can tell.

So, you're happy not to be supported when you retire?

an economy that lasts 100 years in which the majority of people are very well off? That's what stopping procreating would give us. — Bartricks

No, it's not. Where will the workers come from?

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. — Bartricks

What you're failing to see is that that situation could only last for about half the average working like of around 40-45 years.Once there are no more children then the shortage of workers would soon be felt. Also, all of the industries and jobs that presently cater for the needs of children would quickly collapse, producing unemployment and more people who need financial support. But the two tendencies shortage of labour and the loss of jobs would probably not be able to be coordinated such as to provide a smooth transition.

You don't seem to understand how fragile our global economy is.

If you believe that global warming will cause great suffering, and you believe it is wrong to cause, or even contribute to, greater suffering, then what is hypothetical about that? — Janus

It is hypothetical because: sexual reproduction $\Rightarrow$ global warming $\Rightarrow$ suffering.

A categorical imperative does not use that kind of arrows.

For example: You will not steal.

It does not try to achieve any particular goal. In categorical morality, there is no reason why people are not allowed to steal. It is merely axomatized as a basic rule.

Can we have a categorical imperative: You will not sexually reproduce. ?

Well, no, for reasons mentioned above, a moral scripture will never axiomatize a thing like that.

They're already around. I'm one of them. There are loads of them. Go to a city and look around - the people you see doing jobs, they're the workers.
What, you think if people stopped procreating everyone who currently exists disappears?

No, why would I be happy about it?

And I will be supported when I retire - I'll pay for support. And the people I pay will be people who've been unjustly burdened with the same problem I've been burdened with. And they'll be grateful I'm paying them.
Let's be clear: the fact I may need support when I'm old is a problem my parents are responsible for, not me. I think they should pay for it. But obviously they're not, and they probably won't be around when I'm old. So, I'll pay someone else to look after me, if I need it. And if I can't afford it, and if the state isn't willing to pay someone on my behalf, then I'll starve to death. That'd probably take about a week - one grim week in the larger scheme of things isn't too bad, and anyway, I don't think I am justified in burdening another person with all the same problems (and doing so without asking) just to try and avoid that grim week from occurring. (And it'd probably occur even if I did procreate, for most kids don't actually look after their parents).

It does not try to achieve any particular goal. — alcontali

I don't agree. The goal is workability. If everyone routinely lied, stole, murdered, raped and so on, society would be unsustainable. That is the basis of the thought experiment re willing that something morally right should become a universal maxim. If the outcome would be unsustainable, then no rational person could so will. Otherwise, what would it matter (apart from any basically selfish or compassion-based Humean feelings of revulsion towards theft, murder, rape and so on which are alien to Kant's CI)?

And I will be supported when I retire - I'll pay for support. — Bartricks

If you are younger than about 50 I doubt you will if things go the way they seem to be. You might have superannuation, but it is likely invested in the financial markets; what do you think will happen if they collapse?

Yes, you will likely starve, and if that doesn't bother you then it isn't really a problem, is it? I would say it would be a problem for the majority of people. But note, I'm not saying we should all have kids. I tend towards thinking that the ethically better choice would be not to have them, and I think that only on account of the fact that I don't think we should have any confidence in our ability to provide them with a good life. But I am not about to preach to others about it; I am content to leave it to them. If you had the power would you legislate to prevent people from having children?

I don't agree. The goal is workability. — Janus

We do not know if it will still be workable 125 generations from now.

Your approach requires a copy of the Theory of Everything (ToE) to function, but you do not have such copy. Religious believers, on the other hand, believe that the revealed scripture originates from someone who does have such copy, called the "Tablet of Wisdom".

One thing is sure, though. Regardless of what X you use as a starting point, improvisation in the basic rules of morality will always snowball into a nightmare.

With secular law and religious law being in the same epistemic domain, you can ask any lawyer or judge if he thinks that his profession needs such basic document, "the law", to bring back arguments to, and if he believes that it is wise to liberally improvise changes to that basic document.

Do you really think that we have any good reason to believe that we will find solutions to the massive, rapidly intensifying convergence of problems we currently face? Take global warming; no one seems to have any idea how we could stop using fossil fuels (which is arguably what would be needed to avoid catastrophic warming) without collapsing the current economy. I don't think we need a ToE to see that.

Politicians everywhere pay no more than lip-service to the issue of global warming. And that is not to mention resource depletion, habitat destruction, species extinction, growing financial fragility and instability. Do you really believe that humans will be able to cooperate enough to solve all these rapidly growing and converging problems? Don't get me wrong; I hope we can; but I don't think we should base our thinking on counting on our ability to do so.

Do you really think that we have any good reason to believe that we will find solutions to the massive, rapidly intensifying convergence of problems we currently face? Take global warming; no one seems to have any idea how we could stop using fossil fuels (which is arguably what would be needed to avoid catastrophic warming) without collapsing the current economy. — Janus

I think that 10 000 - 20 000 years ago, before they started farming, they were already gradually running out of game to hunt; a problem undoubtedly caused by their dangerously growing head count. At that point, they could also have said: "Hey, the sky is falling. Stop making kids right now!"

At that point, they could also have said: "Hey, the sky is falling. Stop making kids right now!" — alcontali

And I think that would've made much more sense.

This is the anti-natalist argument, one that I find contemptible. Full of anger and bitter hatred for the world and people in it. Nothing is more mean-spirited, graceless than this. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. — T Clark

It's laden with hypocrisy and cowardice.

Someone refuses to end their life prematurely but insists on denying a newborn life on behalf of an unborn.
Biting the bullet would spare both the parent and their unborn child from this potentially wretched world, but how often does it go out like that?

If the world is so blatantly dangerous and unwelcoming, running away from it isn't going to change that; but maybe fresh minds could solve the problem in a manner that current befuddled ones didn't come to - and offer a future where people don't have to be scared of potential harm.

If having children is unethical, having this conversation is unethical - both on an anthropic and scientific basis; as we shouldn't have progressed this far for fear of what might be.

Children are the hope of the future, and denying them is denying the chance for redemption; no two ways about it.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that hunter/gatherers were running out of food resources? Given the sustainable practices of hunter/gatherers observed over the last couple centuries and today it seems unlikely.

Children are the hope of the future, and denying them is denying the chance for redemption; no two ways about it. — Shamshir

I can't relate to this. The future is the only hope for the future. If the future is hopeless then the lives of the children of the future will be hopeless. In any case why is mankind in need of redemption?
.

You clearly don't understand the antinatalist arguments.

it is wrong, other things being equal, to impose significant things on other people without their prior consent .

Procreative acts do that - therefore they are wrong, other things being equal.

How on earth does that imply that we ought to kill ourselves? It doesn't follow at all.

It is also wrong to want to be loved unconditionally and to create someone who'll do so. Most procreative acts are peformed for such reasons and/or have that upshot.

How on earth does it follow from this that we ought to kill ourselves?

The future is the only hope for the future. — Janus

No children - no future; thus the children are the future and its hope rests with the them.

In any case why is mankind in need of redemption? — Janus

Look around you. How malicious human history has been and is continuing to be; bad news everyday.

More often than not there's some snake with a toothache spitting from afar - is this what humanity should remain relegated to?

it is wrong, other things being equal, to impose significant things on other people without their prior consent . — Bartricks

If it's wrong, then don't impose antinatalism - as you have neither your unborn nor your newborn offering consent.

question begging. You're assuming - not showing - that the economy would tank if everyone stopped procreating. I've argued that the exact opposite is the case. I've explained why at length. Just do the math, as the Americans say. Or alternatively, quickly inspect those economies in which people have loads and loads of children and compare them to economies in which people have fewer children and see which ones you think are doing better.

Anyway, for someone who pretends to be interested in keeping things focussed on topic, you're doing a good job of wandering from it.

the issue is whether it is ethical to procreate, not how wise it is in terms of pension planning. It is, in fact, extremely unwise in terms of pension planning - I will be a much richer older person without kids than with, I guarantee it - but that's not the issue. For even if having kids was a good pension plan (and it really isn't - just do some research if you don't believe me), that wouldn't make it ethical to have them.

You can't impose something on the non-existent. Think about it.

Then I'm not imposing and natalism isn't wrong; and we go full circle.

Yes you are. If you procreate you are imposing life here on someone. They exist - you made them exist.
by contrast, if you don't procreate, then you're not imposing anything on anyone.
You can't impose something on someone who does not exist. But you can impose something on someone who does exist.
This is getting painful.

They exist - you made them exist. — Bartricks

They don't exist and you forced them not to exist.

You can't impose something on someone who does not exist. — Bartricks

Then I can't impose either natalism or antinatalism.

Keep running this hamster wheel over and over, your own statements are your bane.

Or alternatively, quickly inspect those economies in which people have loads and loads of children and compare them to economies in which people have fewer children and see which ones you think are doing better. — Bartricks

Prosperity leads to declining reproduction rates, not the other way around. Our prosperity is supported by exploiting workers and even slave labour, including children, in other countries.

the issue is whether it is ethical to procreate, not how wise it is in terms of pension planning. — Bartricks

Depending on whether you are a consequentialist or a deontologist, pension planning would or would not come into consideration of the question concerning the ethics of procreation.

You are confusing the question of whether having children is financially beneficial for the individual who has them with the question of whether having children in general is beneficial to society in general. It is by no means as simplistic a question as you seem to think it is.

The less they know, the less they know it. You can impose existence on someone, because a necessary condition on an imposition - that the person who is being imposed-on exist at some point - is satisfied. By contrast, you cannot impose non-existence on someone who does not, has not, and will not exist, for that self-same condition is NOT satisfied. The problem is that you do have to be above a certain IQ level to see this.

Make up your mind already.

Can I or can't I impose existence on the nonexistent?

Saying something doesn't make it so (well, sometimes it does, but not in this case). You assert that rising prosperity causes people to have fewer children rather than it being the other way around. Well, it's both and, like I say, I have explained at length why not having any kids would mean the economy would boom - I am not going to go through it again, just do the sums. But presumably by your confused logic those prosperous economies in which there is little reproduction going on are not really prosperous at all - due to the low reproduction. I mean, you think that it is good for the economy for people to have kids. You better tell that to those in the prosperous economies - that way they can have more kids and be even more prosperous!

Tell you what, you invest your money in economies in which the average person has ten kids, and I'll invest my money in those economies with the lowest rates of reproduction on the planet, and we'll see who does best. I'm betting on me - and you are too, because you're not going to invest a penny in those economies are you?

No, you can't impose existence on the non-existent.

Again, slowly this time: you can only impose something on someone who exists at some point.

And if you create someone then they.....wait for it.....exist!