If you had the power, what restrictions would you put on people being able to have children? — T Clark

Knowledge and power don't mix. People are free to choose but their choices, in this issue, must be ethical.

Knowledge and power don't mix. People are free to choose but their choices, in this issue, must be ethical. — TheMadFool

This response is ambiguous. I'll ask again. If you could, would you put restrictions on others being able to have children? Yes? No? You don't know?

Of course people are free to choose. That's not the issue. It's about the ethics of having children and clearly, if you don't want your child to hurt anyone or get hurt, both of which are inevitable and unethical, then people should NOT have children. — TheMadFool

Do you not understand what entitlement means?

And regarding what you say about people not wanting their child to hurt anyone or get hurt, that's fine. That's just part and parcel of life, and people can and do still value and enjoy their lives regardless. Virtually everyone concludes that it's much better for the child to live in the first place.

This response is ambiguous. I'll ask again. If you could, would you put restrictions on others being able to have children? Yes? No? You don't know? — T Clark

I wouldn't put restrictions or enforce any sort of behavior. Of course you must remember that ethics is precisely about dos and don'ts but these must be reasoned positions as I have hopefully done so.

Do you not understand what entitlement means? — S

I think ethics is more important than entitlement. I'm entitled to eat meat but is it ethical to kill animals?

I think ethics is more important than entitlement. I'm entitled to eat meat but is it ethical to kill animals? — TheMadFool

Entitlement is part of ethics. It means having a right. You don't seem to understand what entitlement is. It isn't the same as freedom. Your question makes no sense. If you're entitled to eat meat, and the only way for that to happen is for animals to be killed, then it must be ethical for animals to be killed, otherwise how could you be entitled to eat meat?

I wouldn't put restrictions or enforce any sort of behavior. — TheMadFool

As you may have seen, I have a strong angry reaction to the anti-natalist argument. At the end, when both sides have laid out our positions and failed in our attempts to convince, as we always do, I want to ask that final question. It seems important.

In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. — TheMadFool

What about the option where neither happens?

Even if it is an improbability, it's not an impossibility, is it?

In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. — TheMadFool

This is astoundingly shortsighted when you think about it. I was a child once. You were a child once. We all were a child once. We've all hurt and been hurt. Who here wishes they were never born? Not I.

I don't think it'd be good advice to avoid being hurt at all costs. Some experiences in life require you to get hurt. That doesn't make being hurt a good thing somehow, but it does mean I don't really want my children to never get hurt.

I don't think it'd be good advice to avoid being hurt at all costs. Some experiences in life require you to get hurt. That doesn't make being hurt a good thing somehow, but it does mean I don't really want my children to never get hurt. — Echarmion

Exactly. I completely agree. That's what I mean about how shortsighted what he said is. It's like he either hasn't thought it through properly, or worse: he's deliberately leaving out important factors because they don't work in his favour.

To reject my argument we must resort to a utilitarian calculus dependent on an improbability of the consequences I described or balancing suffering with happiness. However these are all, as you know, probabilities and we can never be sure of them to the degree required to allow us to make a decision.

However, the two consequences of birth I described, hurt someone or get hurt by someone, are so certain that we may base a definitive decision on them and the decision should be not to have children.

Another relevant point is heaven. Why does the concept of heaven exist if, as you say, life on earth is so desirable? We wish a better state of existence than the one we have on earth which proves that people aren't as happy or happy to the extent that makes life on earth desirable.

Yes, we also have the notion of hell but earth, this life, isn't good enough an escape from it. Heaven, the very idea of it, is evidence against any utilitarian calculus in favor of having children.

And regarding what you say about people not wanting their child to hurt anyone or get hurt, that's fine. That's just part and parcel of life, and people can and do still value and enjoy their lives regardless. Virtually everyone concludes that it's much better for the child to live in the first place. — S

Well said. Getting hurt/hurting others: isn't this at the core of the art of being human? It is to me. I will not speak for anyone other than myself: the art of being human centers around the ways I've learned to to avoid being hurt and to avoid hurting others--i.e., avoiding certain types of people, not taking the bait when being bated, practicing patience and refraining from nastiness --in short, honing our discernment and acquiring knowledge about how to be my best self (in progress) and help bring out the best in others.

That is, if it matters to one not to hurt others. I don't think it's unethical to have kids: I think it's unethical to be an abusive parent.

I'm new too. If there are too many trolls baiting others on this forum, then I won't stick around. Because I'm not here to insult others or be insulted. I'm here for some stimulating and thought provoking dialogue and exchange.

You pose very interesting questions. What I understand the philosopher to be saying is that it would be a good idea to reduce the human population at this point, because life on earth is in the process of becoming disasterous for millions of people.

I'm a university professor and I try to engage my students to consider how the planet will be for their children and grandchildren. I understand, however, having been through my late teens-early 20s some decades ago, that it isn't easy to get young people to have a "mature" sense of time and history. They have so little past, so little historical perspective, and I have also observed that the majority of them don't have much perspective on the future, either. They focus on the present. They couldn't possibly have the same perspective that I have in my 60s: accumulated experience and the capacity to evaluate it are two of the keen intellectual pleasures of aging.

You pose very interesting questions. What I understand the philosopher to be saying is that it would be a good idea to reduce the human population at this point, because life on earth is in the process of becoming disasterous for millions of people. — uncanni

I don't intend this as point in favor any particular position - just some possibly relevant information. It is my understanding that demographers are pretty confident that the Earth's population growth rate will reach 0 in about the year 2100. At that time, they estimate there will be about 11 billion people living here.

My rational intuition tells me that there is not much we can do about this either way, assuming no catastrophic intervention. The Chinese took an extreme swing at dealing with the issue with their one-child policy which has had negative social effects with which they are now trying to deal.

As you may have seen, I have a strong angry reaction to the anti-natalist argument. — T Clark

Where do you feel the anger comes from? I'm asking because I don't have an issue with Shakers not procreating. Neither do I have an issue with those who feel it unethical to have children holding the position. The only place where an issue arises, for me, is where it crosses the threshold to claim a justifiable imposition, and then only when it has a risk of political uptake.

I admit to an occasional twinge of pique when those in the anti-natalist camp make a claim to some inherent ethical contradiction in those of us who have children. After reflection, though, I find my emotional reaction is unjustified, in as much as I'm dealing with anonymous people on the Internet.

The sophomoric nature of the argument made and its radical departure from modern life (universal acceptance of the claims would lead, clearly, to extinction) lead me to reflect on them as I would conspiracy theorist claims. It's interesting as an exercise in dissecting how we arrive at what we believe, but doesn't move the needle with respect to foundational belief.

I guess I'm asking is whether you feel dispassionate argumentation is somehow flawed. Where does emotion serve a purpose?

The sophomoric nature of the argument made and its radical departure from modern life (universal acceptance of the claims would lead, clearly, to extinction) lead me to reflect on them as I would conspiracy theorist claims. It's interesting as an exercise in dissecting how we arrive at what we believe, but doesn't move the needle with respect to foundational belief. — JosephS

Characterizing an argument is not dealing with the argument qua argument. It is placing it in a box so as to not actually tackle the questions it poses head on. However, you somewhat redeem this statement by saying that antinatalism, at the least, allows us to explore how it is that we believe certain foundational ideas such as why we believe having more people is good. I think you cannot go into a philosophy forum and expect all arguments to conform to only mainstream views on foundational beliefs. In fact, that might be going against the spirit of philosophy itself, which in its essence, is about questioning foundational beliefs, whether that be in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and value.

My rational intuition tells me that there is not much we can do about this either way, assuming no catastrophic intervention. — T Clark

I'm in general agreement with your outlook but I do have an objection as it applies to public policy and how we can minimize the risk of resource misallocation. I wonder if the issue of failing to price externalities into our individual economic decision-making might lead to civil discord as we are forced to deal with this misallocation. As an example (and I'm not sure this is properly considered an externality), we can look at a rising national deficit and how we, as a country, have a spendthrift economy. The perception that we have more headroom than we do may have us having more children than we can economically bear and may give rise to conflict as natural resource allocation provides smaller margins with a larger population.

Rational policy as it applies to pricing individual economic decisions may help reduce the risk as we work towards a population equilibrium.

Rational policy as it applies to pricing individual economic decisions may help reduce the risk as we work towards a population equilibrium. — JosephS

As I said in my post, I'm not sure what the information I provided means for the issues we are discussing and I don't know what we can or should do about it, if anything. I just thought it was relevant.

As for your previous post about the anger I feel when dealing with anti-natalist arguments, I do plan to respond.

Very interesting what you say about the negative impacts of the one child policy in China. I had never considered it.

I wonder what the demographers say about the impact of climate change on the world population, and I intend to see if I can find out. I certainly hope that it's been taken into consideration in their projected numbers. And at this point in time, I would have to express some skepticism about their projections precisely because global warming is impacting earth's inhabitants much faster than was anticipated 10 years ago.

Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok?
— khaled
Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs
— khaled
The whole post is oozing hypocrisy. — Shamshir

Jesus fucking Christ. Citing one example then saying the whole post is oozing with hypocrisy? Also the first quote very clearly has the the added line “please actually make a case for something” doesn’t it? Under conventional uses of language, anyone would infer that means that this isn’t actually my position but that I’m inquiring if it yours. But you choose to be willfully blind. Now you’re quoting out of context too. What happened shamshir, you were doing so well last time.

no one left to visit or care for you and you become nothing more than a burden on the social system — Shamshir

So if there is someone to care for me I’m suddenly not a burden on the social system? Well that’s false. The burden just shifts to people closer to me. And how is this an argument for natalism exactly? “Have kids so they can take care of you when you’re old”. Are you seriously pushing this as an argument right now? You cannot think of kids except as tools can you? And you just liked having kids to building a house too....

But this really does amount to the same thing as harming ghost babies, doesn't it — Echarmion

No.

If the position in time of whoever is harmed by an action is of no consequence, then we treat them as if they were alive right now — Echarmion

No. We only do that when considering the consequences of a certain action. For example, we don’t think not having kids is harming anyone. Because not having kids has no negative consequence on anyone. However having kids does have negative consequences on someone in the future, it doesn’t matter if they existed at the time the decision was made

Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the fact that the person doesn't exist is "of no consequence". — Echarmion

Let’s test that.

Which is more wrong?:
A: implanting a bomb in someone at age 1 which will detonate at age 18 without them knowing
B: implanting a bomb in fetus which will detonate when the person born reaches age 18
C: bombing someone aged 18

I don’t think either is more or less wrong than the other do you?

Perhaps you could explain why it is wrong. — Echarmion

Because it risks (pretty much guarantees) harming someone in the future. It doesn’t matter that that person doesn’t exist at the time

I don't think "existing" is an action. It's a relation between a mental concept and some external state. — Echarmion

I think existing is an action. Considering it can be stopped. Maybe “living” would’ve been a better word.

Surely you've heard this before. All the people who think that life is worth living. — S

Yes I have, and I thought it was an unrelated argument. Whether or not the living think life is worth living has nothing to do with whether or not they can add more people. Because there is a difference between an experience worth living through and an experience worth starting. Example: blindness is an experience worth living through but that doesn’t make it ok to go around hacking people’s eyes out does it? Similarly, life is worth living through but that doesn't necessarily justify adding more people to it does it? Even though in both cases the person in question will likely get over the difficulties of blindness/life and come to enjoy it later.

What a highbrow nonsense! Nobody remains childless because she wants to do something against climate warming.
You have a child or not because this is a very personal preference. — Matias

It is probably not 'either/or'. I don't see why such concerns can't be part of a large web of motivational vectors that end up summing one way or another. It would seem that in the way you are looking at it, no decision of any kind could ever be made on the basis of conscious, rational consideration of cost and benefit, and all such thinking would amount to no more than post hoc justification for behaviors really rooted in pure feelings or unconscious factors. Such irrational factors almost certainly play a role, but I think there's room for reason to inject some influence. That influence will never be total though. Feelings, after all, and even such things as wanting to be a "good person" (probably partly unconsciously a wish to receive love) are partly at the root of worries about climate change.

If I think about why I haven't had kids, I see a large and complex web of factors. And concerns about such things as global warming form part of that web.

Characterizing an argument is not dealing with the argument qua argument. It is placing it in a box so as to not actually tackle the questions it poses head on. However, you somewhat redeem this statement by saying that antinatalism, at the least, allows us to explore how it is that we believe certain foundational ideas such as why we believe having more people is good. I think you cannot go into a philosophy forum and expect all arguments to conform to only mainstream views on foundational beliefs. In fact, that might be going against the spirit of philosophy itself, which in its essence, is about questioning foundational beliefs, whether that be in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and value. — schopenhauer1

Thinking about the topic is certainly helpful for me as I work through questions that I previously haven't considered. Among other things it has sparked an interest in understanding avenues for explanatory results from a neural net. This has generally been a limitation in comparison to other algorithms, such as decision trees.

In considering the topic at hand, I find myself considering propositions (narratives) around the good of human existence, the difference between the good of the individual animal vs the good of the species (why its worse to eat the last dodo in existence vs any particular dodo among many), how the prevention of suffering compares with respect to these goods. What I don't find myself doing is taking seriously human self-extinction as a good.

Entitlement is part of ethics. It means having a right. — S

What is a right?

I wonder what the demographers say about the impact of climate change on the world population, and I intend to see if I can find out. I certainly hope that it's been taken into consideration in their projected numbers. And at this point in time, I would have to express some skepticism about their projections precisely because global warming is impacting earth's inhabitants much faster than was anticipated 10 years ago. — uncanni

I'm guessing the numbers don't include the effects of climate change on population. I don't think anyone knows how to quantify that.

I guess I'm asking is whether you feel dispassionate argumentation is somehow flawed. Where does emotion serve a purpose? — JosephS

For me, it comes down to this - all philosophical arguments involve human values and preferences. Values and preferences mean emotions and feelings. It is one of the great misunderstandings of philosophy that the issues we consider have resolutions that don't involve values. That they can be resolved by applying strict rationalist rules. This is especially true when we are discussing moral issues.

I think if you look through my posts on the forum, you'll see that I self-consciously bring feelings, emotions, preferences, and values into most of my arguments. That doesn't count the times when I've lost my temper out of frustration or because of perceived insult. I have no good excuses for those.

I don't know if you've gone all through this thread, so here are the posts I was referring to when I talked about my anger:

You're living in a dangerous world full of dangerous and evil people - if you want to be loved do your best to cultivate loving relationships with those who are already around, but don't summon into being vulnerable, innocent people so that you can be the centre of their attention. — Bartricks

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

Based on their words, Bartricks and his tribe hate the world and they hate people. They write off three billion years of our existence based on their brief, pitiful view of life. They sneer at human emotion, loyalty, community, and love. How can recognizing that not be part of a philosophical response to their positions?

Which is why I'm skeptical about their projections for 2100.

One question that comes to mind for me when reading some of the posts in this thread is this: can a person ever be said to belong to another? More specifically, do parents own their children?

Consider that it is generally thought to be wrong for parents to beat their kids. This was once thought to be a man's right, as he basically owned his family. He could even kill them or his wife in some cultures.

The thing is, having a child inevitably involves more than just my interests. The interests of the child and perhaps the rest of the world must be considered. And usually, when a person's choices impact another in a big way, we tend, in our culture now, to see that as a place where state intervention is justified. Even in libertarian thought, you have this "my freedom ends where the other person's nose begins" idea. We have the state intervening between parents and children in abuse cases. Why not reproduction?

I find the claim that a person is entitled to or has a right to have kids questionable. I think one would be very hard-pressed to fully justify such a claim.

If someone is being raped, would the rapist be right to say it is nobody else's business, or that he has a right to meet his sexual needs? If he were doing something involving no harm to others, we might accept his claim.

Does a child qualify as "someone else" in relation to the parent? If so, are questions of harm any different here as opposed to with strangers?

It seems that people have a sense that "this is my child!" And this feeling is where they ground ideas like having a right to discipline as they see fit, being entitled to reproduce, and so on. But isn't this "my child" claim questionable?