Again, you raise interesting questions. I wouldn't answer them with a definitive 'yes' or 'no'. I am still on the fence. On the one hand I fully appreciate the massive responsibility one takes by choosing to put another human being on this world. On the other, I don't share your account of what life is like and I find it rather gloomy and negative. The negative aspects of life seem to create reasons to not have children, while the good aspects of life are ignored. I am not convinced of the soundness of that.

People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices. — SonOfAGun

Will they? I've been debating this for a while. People are not like other animals- we CAN deliberate. Some people due to personality, culture, and maybe genetic predisposition PREFER a certain outcome, but that does not mean they MUST follow-through and do it. In fact, even the very preference itself can be probably replaced with another one, being that it is in fact a preference, not a biological necessity. Going to the bathroom is indeed instinctual, physical pleasure is instinctual, feeling scared with a sudden fall is instinctual. However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference, like wanting a car. I know it sounds weird because we have reified preference into biology because it seems like procreation itself is a biological drive, but it is not. We are playing pop-science and using other animals as examples, that is not our condition.

However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference — schopenhauer1

Again, you raise interesting questions. — Tzeentch

I am glad you at least find them interesting :smile: .

The negative aspects of life seem to create reasons to not have children, while the good aspects of life are ignored. I am not convinced of the soundness of that. — Tzeentch

This raises a good point that philosopher David Benatar has also raised. The negative aspects of life is where the moral issue lies, not the good aspects. So that is actually the basis perhaps where most conflict regarding antinatalism lies- how much weight to put on negative experiences?

Benatar's argument (which I agree with mainly), says that preventing a negative is always a good thing, even if there is no one there to know it. However, not experiencing a positive is only a bad thing if there is actually a person who exists that is being deprived of that good thing. One thought experiment he uses is aliens. If we learned that aliens on Mars lived tortuous, sad lives, we most likely would pity them and feel bad. If we learned that aliens don't exist at all on Mars, we don't really feel devastated or empathetic about all the happiness the non-existent aliens are missing. So, that intuition can tell us that there is greater moral weight on preventing negative (it is always good), and not good or bad if there is no person who actually exists to feel good.

However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference — schopenhauer1

"All species of animals have an innate urge to create offspring. If not they would have died out. 2. As a result, all normal adult human beings feel the inner need to bring forth children them-selves."

https://personal.eur.nl/veenhoven/Pub1970s/75c-full.pdf

Are you kidding? That whole article is saying that the idea that there is an innate instinct to procreate is actually wrong. Actually, thank you for providing this.. More evidence that procreation is not an instinct. Look at what the article actually says :lol: :

He says right here:

Why this theory is wrong
This theory seems plausible at first glance, but looking at it more closely we can see that it is
based on simplifications and that its predictions turn out to be faulty. We will examine the
propositions mentioned above successively.
3.1 Animals have no 'desire for offspring'
It is true that almost all animals produce offspring, but it is probably not true that this behavior is
determined by an innate desire for offspring. It is highly improbable that animals are motivated
by such conscious wishes for long-term effects. It is far more probable that the reproduction
behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual
drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal
behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced
as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational
characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and
can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.
These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are
governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for
offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation.
3.2 Neither have human beings an innate need for children
Contrary to animals, human beings are capable of pursuing conscious long-term goals. Many
human beings are conscious of a desire for children and work to have them, but this behavior is
not necessarily dictated by an innate need. Human behavior is seldom directly governed by
instincts. Again and again the ever-present influence of environmental circumstances and
learning has been demonstrated. It is improbable that they would not influence the procreation
behavior. In addition human instincts are seldom linked to such specific patterns of behavior. As
far as instinctual tendencies in human beings may be assumed they pertain to vague preferences
which are manifested in very different forms of behavior. Reasoning along this line we could
hypothesize that human beings have instinctual needs for security, love, esteem and
meaningfulness (Maslow, 1964). These needs might be realized in parenthood as well as in a
cloister life, in a political career as well as in an intimate interaction with friends, etc.
The specific form in which the individual chooses to realize his instinctual needs is
probably highly affected by his experience and by the alternatives the socio-cultural environment
offers him. It makes more sense to look at parenthood as one of these alternatives than to
postulate an innate and compelling desire for children.
The idea of an instinctual desire for children is not only a theoretical simplification but
also fails to meet empirical support. If there were such a built-in need the desire for children
should be universal, but this prediction is not confirmed by facts. Millions of people decide
spontaneously for voluntary childlessness. In Canada 5 % of all married couples opt for
childlessness (Veevers, 1973). In the Netherlands 15 % of the couples married in the last few
years intend to forego parenthood (NIDI, 1974). This is not a temporary modern whim, but a
Ruut Veenhoven 2 Is there an innate need for children?
phenomenon that has also been observed in earlier times, In medieval Western European society,
for example, a major part of the population remained childless.
These facts, however, offer no decisive evidence against the procreation-instinct theory. It
could be agreed that all these childless people pay a heavy price for their choice, that the
violation of such a compelling need makes people unhappy -- in any case less happy than people
who follow this need. Here we arrive at propositions 4, 5 and 6 mentioned earlier. To test these
propositions a secondary analysis was made of the data from an investigation concerning the
health and the life circumstances among a representative sample of the adult population of the
Netherlands, As we will see below these data give no support to the predictions of the
procreation-instinct theory. — IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN? Ruut Veenhoven European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501

Oh mine as well put the rest of the article here too. He goes on to say:

3.2.1 Parents are not happier than non-parents
All respondents rated their general feelings of happiness on a seven-point scale. Comparison of
the scores of couples with children and of couples without children revealed no striking
differences. Non-parents seem slightly happier, but the difference fails to meet the 95 % level of
significance (see Table 1).
One could object that this outcome is possibly influenced by a tendency of childless
respondents to rate more happiness than they really feel. We checked this objection by testing the
hypothesis that happy non-parents show a higher score on the General Index of Complaints (see
below) than happy parents do. This check is based on the assumption that frustration of a
fundamental human need gives rise to both feelings of unhappiness and psychosomatic disorders,
the avowal of which is more susceptible to rationalizations by the respondent in the first case than
in the latter. This control hypothesis was rejected; the happiness scores of non-parents turned out
to be no less liable than those of the parents.
3.2.2 Parents do not have fewer psychosomatic complaints than non-parents
The same holds for psychosomatic complaints. The questionnaire contained 85 questions
concerning various complaints such as headache. nervousness, frequent diarrhea, feelings of
being unnatural, depression, etc. On the basis of these questions a General Index of Complaints
was constructed which turned out to be highly related to the clinical diagnose of neurasthenia.
This index was compared for parents and non-parents, but a statistical relationship could not be
demonstrated.
3.2.3 Parents feel less healthy than non-parents do
The questionnaire also contained a rating scale for subjective health feeling. Contrary to the
predictions of the procreation-instinct theory parents turn out to feel less healthy than non-parents
(see Table 1). More than the fulfillment of an undeniable need, parenthood seems to be a tiring
job.
3.2.4 Non-parents do not face a poorer life when growing older
The relation between childlessness and happiness is not affected by age. The same holds for the
relationship between childlessness and psychosomatic complaints. Age does affect the relation
with subjective health feeling: Non-parents in the age of 55 to 65 are feeling significantly better
than parents.
Ruut Veenhoven 3 Is there an innate need for children?
3.2.5 Non-parents report no more doubts about the meaning of their life than parents
Analysis of the answers to a question about the meaningfulness of one's life did not reveal a
difference between parents and non-parents. No relationship could be found within the different
age groups, nor could a stronger tendency towards such a relation be demonstrated in the older
age groups.
The same holds for anxiety about old age and death. Non-parents do not seem to expect a
more problematic and lonesome end of their life. On the contrary, older parents report more
feelings of anxiety concerning this subject, though the difference hardly reaches the 95 % level of
significance. There is no evidence for the notion that non-parents feel more isolated in the later
years of life. Neither do non-parents report a lower degree of marital happiness nor show a higher
degree of problems in social interaction.
3.2.6 Procreation-instinct theory is applicable neither to men nor to women
On the basis of folk theory we might suppose that the results mentioned above hide a major
difference between men and women, with women being especially prone to negative effects of
childlessness. This hypothesis was tested, but it received little support. Childless married women
revealed no less happiness than mothers and reported neither more psychosomatic complaints.
nor more doubt about meaning of life. Likewise they reported neither less subjective health
feeling, nor more anxiety about old age and dying. They did not report less marital satisfaction. In
all age groups a tendency for non-parents to report a higher state of well-being could be observed,
but none of them reached the 95 % level of significance. For men they did in two instances,
Married male non-parents feel more healthy and report a higher level of marital satisfaction.
Finally we might suppose in the basis of the procreation-instinct theory that pregnant
married women are happier than non-pregnant married women. pregnancy being at least partial
gratification of the maternal urge. Twenty-two married respondents were pregnant at the time of
the interview. They were less happy than non-pregnant married female respondents. This result
fits in with the findings of Klein et al. (1950) and Tobin (1957). Again, a derivation from the
procreation-instinct theory fails to find empirical support. — IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN? Ruut Veenhoven European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501

Are you kidding? That whole article is saying that the idea that there is an innate instinct to procreate is actually wrong. Actually, thank you for providing this.. More evidence that procreation is not an instinct. Look at what the article actually says :lol: :

He says right here:

[quote=IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN?
Ruut Veenhoven
Published in: European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501]
Why this theory is wrong
This theory seems plausible at first glance, but looking at it more closely we can see that it is
based on simplifications and that its predictions turn out to be faulty. We will examine the
propositions mentioned above successively.
3.1 Animals have no 'desire for offspring'
It is true that almost all animals produce offspring, but it is probably not true that this behavior is
determined by an innate desire for offspring. It is highly improbable that animals are motivated
by such conscious wishes for long-term effects. It is far more probable that the reproduction
behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual
drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal
behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced
as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational
characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and
can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.
These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are
governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for
offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation.
3.2 Neither have human beings an innate need for children
Contrary to animals, human beings are capable of pursuing conscious long-term goals. Many
human beings are conscious of a desire for children and work to have them, but this behavior is
not necessarily dictated by an innate need. Human behavior is seldom directly governed by
instincts. Again and again the ever-present influence of environmental circumstances and
learning has been demonstrated. It is improbable that they would not influence the procreation
behavior. In addition human instincts are seldom linked to such specific patterns of behavior. As
far as instinctual tendencies in human beings may be assumed they pertain to vague preferences
which are manifested in very different forms of behavior. Reasoning along this line we could
hypothesize that human beings have instinctual needs for security, love, esteem and
meaningfulness (Maslow, 1964). These needs might be realized in parenthood as well as in a
cloister life, in a political career as well as in an intimate interaction with friends, etc.
The specific form in which the individual chooses to realize his instinctual needs is
probably highly affected by his experience and by the alternatives the socio-cultural environment
offers him. It makes more sense to look at parenthood as one of these alternatives than to
postulate an innate and compelling desire for children.
The idea of an instinctual desire for children is not only a theoretical simplification but
also fails to meet empirical support. If there were such a built-in need the desire for children
should be universal, but this prediction is not confirmed by facts. Millions of people decide
spontaneously for voluntary childlessness. In Canada 5 % of all married couples opt for
childlessness (Veevers, 1973). In the Netherlands 15 % of the couples married in the last few
years intend to forego parenthood (NIDI, 1974). This is not a temporary modern whim, but a
Ruut Veenhoven 2 Is there an innate need for children?
phenomenon that has also been observed in earlier times, In medieval Western European society,
for example, a major part of the population remained childless.
These facts, however, offer no decisive evidence against the procreation-instinct theory. It
could be agreed that all these childless people pay a heavy price for their choice, that the
violation of such a compelling need makes people unhappy -- in any case less happy than people
who follow this need. Here we arrive at propositions 4, 5 and 6 mentioned earlier. To test these
propositions a secondary analysis was made of the data from an investigation concerning the
health and the life circumstances among a representative sample of the adult population of the
Netherlands, As we will see below these data give no support to the predictions of the
procreation-instinct theory. — schopenhauer1

[/quote]

Yah I just looked at the excerpt from google and posted it. I should have looked at the article. Not saying I agree though. looking for other information, something more current, but there isn't much on the subject so far. But I definitely don't agree that procreation is not instinctual.

Yah I just looked at the excerpt from google and posted it. I should have looked at the article. Not saying I agree though. looking for other information, something more current, but there isn't much on the subject so far. But I definitely don't agree that procreation is not instinctual. — SonOfAGun

:rofl:
You're not going to find much because it's not true.. But thank you for helping me prove my point. It is a common misconception though if it is any consolation. That article really dissected that well too, how people perceive things that way.

You're not going to find much because it's not true.. But thank you for helping me prove my point. It is a common misconception though if it is any consolation. That article really dissected that well too, how people perceive things that way. — schopenhauer1

Since I cannot find any other material, We'll Just have to analyze the material we do have.

"It is far more probable that the reproduction behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.

These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation."

See I got into this mess because I relied one your wording. Human beings do have an innate sexual drive. Whether or not humans have an "innate need for children" is made entirely irrelevant by the fact that they have an innate sexual drive. One may literally choose not to have children yet still be carried over that threshold by their sexual drive. This is simply nothing more than word games. Yes human beings do not have an "innate need for CHILDREN" but they still have a sex drive that gets them their all the same.

So stupid.

One may literally choose not to have children yet still be carried over that threshold by their sexual drive. This is simply nothing more than word games. Yes human beings do not have an "innate need for CHILDREN" but they still have a sex drive that gets them their all the same. — SonOfAGun

Okay, now you are getting a bit better. No, it is not about wording. We were explicitly talking about procreation, not sex. While I agree sex is pleasurable, physical affection feels nice, and certain cultural (and perhaps biological) triggers enable us to be attracted to certain people, we can nevertheless choose to prevent that from leading to birth. We can even prevent sex itself even if we like it too. However, I will agree, reckless abandonment to what feels good could lead to these consequences (accidental births), it is not like other animals who cannot deliberate. We can still decide that making a life that suffers is worse off than the joy of one's own particular moment. Because we are such flexible animals we can do that. The structures are already in place to allow it for Western/modern societies- birth control, etc.

Okay, now you are getting a bit better. No, it is not about wording. We were explicitly talking about procreation, not sex. While I agree sex is pleasurable, physical affection feels nice, and certain cultural (and perhaps biological) triggers enable us to be attracted to certain people, we can nevertheless choose to prevent that from leading to birth. We can even prevent sex itself even if we like it too. However, I will agree, reckless abandonment to what feels good could lead to these consequences (accidental births), it is not like other animals who cannot deliberate. We can still decide that making a life that suffers is worse off than the joy of one's own particular moment. Because we are such flexible animals we can do that. The structures are already in place to allow it for Western/modern societies- birth control, etc. — schopenhauer1

As I said before "People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices." The statisticians seem to agree with me, as they are projecting that the world populations will reach 15 billion at around 2100 AD.

So again, How is your moral hand waving going to change this?

Also I am not getting bitter, I knew I was in the right all along. which is why I went and looked into things.

The statistician seem to agree with me, as they are projecting that the world populations will reach 15 billion at around 2100 AD. — SonOfAGun

But here's the thing.. I DON'T think most births today are accidental in modern societies. It can be drastically reduced, but people PREFER/WANT to have children. There is where the ideological debate can lie. As for accidents, that's just a matter of education and behavioral changes. If it was purely accidental, that population would be way down.

So again, How is your moral hand waving going to change this? — SonOfAGun

Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian. For example, vegans very well may be in the right. We are harming animals for no reason..However, to force people to stop is too strong a measure. Being something seen on the fringe, it is going to be one person at a time, or maybe as a media campaign, but not as a mandated thing. Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated.

There is where the ideological debate can lie. — schopenhauer1

Yah I don, see it happening man. you go ask the people in India, Africa, and china how well education solves the birthrate problem.

Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian. For example, vegans very well may be in the right. We are harming animals for no reason..However, to force people to stop is too strong a measure. Being something seen on the fringe, it is going to be one person at a time, or maybe as a media campaign, but not as a mandated thing. Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated. — schopenhauer1

"Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian."

I am going to go ahead and assume you mean "forcing others to do what you want is totalitarian" because I don't understand the alternative. And I would not disagree with you. Only the things that I described are not a prescription from me. They are how I think the problem will actually be solved.

"For example, vegans very well may be in the right."

Yah, I highly doubt that that is the truth.

"Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated."

Whether or not they should is irrelevant to whether or not they will be.

Yah I don, see it happening man. you go ask the people in India, Africa, and china how well education solves the birthrate problem. — SonOfAGun

It's actually proven..look at any statistic, that the more women are educated, the less likely they are to have a lot of children. Look at any birth rate of countries that have been more educated over time. India is a great example actually.

It's actually proven..look at any statistic, that the more women are educated, the less likely they are to have a lot of children. Look at any birth rate of countries that have been more educated over time. India is a great example actually. — schopenhauer1

As I said, go ask how well education is working in those countries. This is a physical problem not theoretical.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/birth-rate

↪SonOfAGun
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/birth-rate — schopenhauer1

And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.

https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion

I agree but sometimes the principle itself makes the consequence not worth it. We have a completely different idea of things..

With your model you are saying: Life is worth procreating and living as long as the world is not populated.

With mine it is: Life is not worth procreating and certainly not worth making others deal with it on their behalf. No amount of procreation would be acceptable in that case.

So this is where our paths cross. The project for you is living in certain boundaries, mine is to prevent suffering for a next generation.

With your model you are saying: Life is worth procreating and living as long as the world is not populated. — schopenhauer1

This is wrong. I am trying to be objective. My own desires are irrelevant .

And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.

https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion — SonOfAGun

I feel compelled to point out that this is a complete non-sequitur

And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.

https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion
— SonOfAGun

I feel compelled to point out that this is a complete non-sequitur — Echarmion

How exactly do statistics not follow.

This is wrong. I am trying to be objective. My own desires are irrelevant . — SonOfAGun

I think I know what you are trying to say... So you are saying the only course of action to prevent overpopulation is eventually to instill government control and not making a value statement. You may be right there, but I guess I'm getting at if that is morally the "right" thing for government to be involved with.

See here's the thing, government population control measures just show you how much people are a commodity for society.. They are numbers to be culled and enculturated or not. This actually goes right into my ideas that society itself is an ideology. People are "pressed" into life/society and enculturated on various levels in order to maintain the current situation or to mitigate past situations. People should not be used as such.

What I assume is that there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of whatever system is in place. I don't see the downfall of capitalism coming anytime soon, it is more efficient than any other currently known/demonstrated system. — SonOfAGun

Efficient at creating growth and thus wealth, certainly. But there are situations where one wouldn't choose it. Like if you were embarking on a long journey on limited resources, which is one case where there might actually be a reason to regulate procreation.

No this is not what that means, because it would not be only the "rich" that would be allowed birth rights. you would never be able to sell something like that to society as a whole, and if you were to emplement it over time it would eventually be revolted against. You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there. — SonOfAGun

That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth.

I think I know what you are trying to say... So you are saying the only course of action to prevent overpopulation is eventually to instill government control. You may be right there, but I guess I'm getting at if that is morally the "right" thing for government to be involved with.

See here's the thing, government population control measures just show you how much people are a commodity for society.. They are numbers to be culled and enculturated or not. This actually goes right into my ideas that society itself is an ideology. People are "pressed" into life/society and enculturated on various levels in order to maintain the current situation or to mitigate past situations. People should not be used as such. — schopenhauer1

It is what it is, and will be what it will be whether or not I am right.

How exactly do statistics not follow. — SonOfAGun

Your statement is not connected to the post you were replying to.

"Birth rates in India are going down"
"The population will probably reach X in year Y"

Those are separate. There is a topical connection, but no logical one.

Your statement is not connected to the post you were replying to.

"Birth rates in India are going down"
"The population will probably reach X in year Y"

Those are separate. There is a topical connection, but no logical one. — Echarmion

Ok, that is fine I'll just stick with the statistics.

That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth. — Echarmion

These are all things that would need to be worked out by law scholars and philosophers of that time.

That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth. — Echarmion

Did you read my initial proposal?