You could argue the antinatalist forces people to not procreate. Most schools of thought don’t see procreation as an unjustified imposition. For instance: you would be forcing christians to go directly against their beliefs, as they’re told to have children.

We force things on people all the time if they’re justified. For instance education. So just because a position doesn’t force anything on anyone doesn’t make it better right off the bat. Not having kids go to school is definitely worse than having them go to school.

Or you could argue that the antinatalist also forces things on people. If you choose not to have children, then the people the children would have helped are worse off. You could argue that’s as much an imposition as having the child itself would be. — khaled

We know our positions well here I think, we do not have to rehash it. You will disagree with me as you have in the past about this, but I do believe there to be a distinction of someone not yet born and the already born when it comes to "forced" situations. The making kids go to school is the new lifeguard, etc. Forcing something that does not exist at all versus taking care of people that exist already are two different types of sets. One is null, one is part of the socio-economic-cultural community I talk about. You can disagree with this, but then we are going to veer this thread into something like the other one. I'd like to explore different aspects than this same argument. So if we can do that I'd like to continue but if this is going to be a rehash, I'm not interested as we've already done it an so won't be interesting or productive to me regarding this particular angle.

Is this so obvious? I agree that sex is mediated, but so are the others. Eat spaghetti with your hands. Take a shit and omit the wipe. Things will not go well for you. Before long, it doesn't even occur to you to eat spaghetti with your hands when you're alone. — norm

I actually agree with you here. So you hit upon what I was talking about earlier. Sex is not just an automatic response. It is mediated just like a lot of our other habits needed to survive as a human bound by cultural practices and conventions. We can break out of the habit of procreation, in other words, just like we don't have to dig our hands into spaghetti to eat our food.

Not trying to rehash. Just pointing out that you have an assumption that I don’t think many share behind what you’re saying. It’s not objectively the case that ANs have a moral high ground because they don’t impose, since there are plenty of situations where we find imposing fine, heck, the right thing to do. And there are plenty of ways in which the non ANs are also striving not to impose.

This has maybe served the community in some roundabout way, brave warriors and shamans perhaps. But mostly we are along for ride, cameras jammed into neckholes with the illusion of 'free will.' — norm

Can you explain the difference between the shamans and most people with cameras jammed in neckholes? Is it the difference between those who wipe their ass an those who don't or those who put their hands in the spaghetti and those who don't?

FWIW, I sympathize with anti-natalism. If we truly want to be innocent, unstained lambs, then we should not be at all, for we are worse than lions. There's a short story about a sect who takes it upon to destroy all life on earth, not only human life, because they fear than any residue will climb its way back up the evolutionary ladder back to a recognition of its absurd guilt. Actually that was the short story. I haven't fleshed it out. Why bother? [Nothing is funnier than unhappiness and futility.] — norm

Fair enough. Sounds like you should continue it, if it's yours. Anyways, I am not trying to be that completely annihilationist. Rather, I am framing the usual view of life as a political view, not just a life choice or a preference or a lifestyle choice. To have children is to squarely believe life to be worth continuing and expanding, and perpetuating. So we have two sides of the debate.. the procreationist typical view (those think this is good or at least agnostic) and the antinatalist. One is forcing the situation of the socio-cultural-economic way of life (You have to work, get comfortable, find entertainment, suffer throughout all this and repeat basically). But why put forth this way of life over and over as a necessary or good thing as if this is decidedly so? We complain so much about particular things regarding life an how unfair certain things are, even in the best of circumstances. And yet here we are expanding and perpetuating it nonetheless, not taking it to its logical conclusion. And we not only just have neutral creatures, but creatures who can self-reflect on the very tasks at hand needed to survive and can evaluate it it as not good!

To some degree I think this already exists. Seinfeld loves to talk about how annoying everything is, ad he's ridiculously wealthy. But even without the wealth, to be able to talk with a friend about the horrors of life and make jokes about it is such a relief that life actually becomes pleasant for awhile. Kafka was a comedian. Dostoevsky was a comedian. The best clowns have tears in their eyes. — norm

Yes, Seinfeld and the like is a sort of catharsis. But the comedy makes more palatable.

Not trying to rehash. Just pointing out that you have an assumption that I don’t think many share behind what you’re saying. It’s not objectively the case that ANs have a moral high ground because they don’t impose, since there are plenty of situations where we find imposing fine, heck, the right thing to do. And there are plenty of ways in which the non ANs are also striving not to impose. — khaled

Yes I am well aware of your argument. What do you want me to say to you that would make us both come away feeling this was a productive conversation? You know we disagree, so shall we take another thousand pages to go over this argument? Are you saying this so your record is noted on the books? What would you like me to do with the information you provide me? Do you think that this has convinced me of your case? I only say this to you in particular because we have done this before.

Let me put this another way, to respect the fact that we have argued this same thing before, and to honor the fact that a new thread does not wipe away previous conversations, can you at least think of an argument I might give in the hypothetical thousand pages that would try to counter what you are saying, and frame it in a respectable way?

Yes I am well aware of your argument. What do you want me to say to you that would make us both come away feeling this was a productive conversation? You know we disagree, so shall we take another thousand pages to go over this argument? Are you saying this so your record is noted on the books? What would you like me to do with the information you provide me? Do you think that this has convinced me of your case? I only say this to you in particular because we have done this before. — schopenhauer1

You argue the same thing you get the same reply. Why are you surprised?

can you at least think of an argument I might give in the hypothetical thousand pages that would try to counter what you are saying, and frame it in a respectable way? — schopenhauer1

Not one that I’d find convincing. If I could think of an argument that could convince me to change my mind I would, well, change my mind! But I can’t so I don’t. And anyways that’s your job. You’re the one starting a new thread with the same old arguments. So expect to get the same old replies.

Not one that I’d find convincing. If I could think of an argument that could convince me to change my mind I would, well, change my mind! But I can’t so I don’t. And anyways that’s your job. You’re the one starting a new thread with the same old arguments. So expect to get the same old replies. — khaled

Cool. Your passive-aggressive comments aren't appreciated. I just don't get why pick the same fight? I am interested in moving the conversation into different territories not rehashing it. You seem to be a bit high on your horse thinking that I can't have a conversation about antinatalism unless it addresses the great powerful arguments of the great khaled. Either have a productive conversation or don't. If you don't, and want to have the same repetition, then I'm not interested unless you yourself can find a way past yourself, and no that is not my job that is yours.

I don't see these debates as zero-sum game, like you apparently do. If you want to elevate this so we can get something out of it besides aggravation and a shoving match, I am totally for it.

However, if not, it's going to go the same way:
K: Oh, we can use people once born to better the world.
S: But in doing so you are forcing others into negative experiences.
K: This doesn't matter, because we do it in other things like school and waking up lifeguards.
S: But they are already born so have to live in a community to survive, which is the very point I am trying to make of why perpetuate this society even further.
K: Because you can think of things in aggregate and find the best total gain.
S: But that is not taking into account there will be a new person on the other end who actually has to face this and is not just an tool for aggregation in an overall sum of life.
K: But most people won't find this sum bad but will totally like most things about life like video games and doing work they are proud of
S: Just because I like bowling doesn't mean everyone should like bowling even if a lot of other people end up liking bowling
K: Then you are unrealistic to think that what most people like will be not be thought to apply to most future people as well.
S: As you know, I think that most future people will also be greatly harmed, and that my main point is that tis socio-economic-cultural structure should not be assumed as something that ought to be perpetuated, especially because of some utilitarian-based approach that "good" must be had no matter what.
K: There is no good argument against perpetuating the socio-economic-cultural structure
S: There is a good argument against perpetuating the structure. We can evaluate it as bad, and thus is not a given that this should take place for people with self-reflection of negative aspects. K: So what if people are forced into negative aspects that can be self-reflected? Force isn't bad here as repetio ad absurdum, all things can be forced so this isn't any different.
S: Because one outcome leads to a way of life, and one there is no one that leads any way of life as they don't exist clearly.

Of course we can skip all that and all its variations because we've done it before. What we can focus on maybe to keep it more elevated (and not zero-sum) is see if whether keeping this structure going, is whether it is a political decision and why this political decision is seen as good, necessary, and cannot be criticized.

I am interested in moving the conversation into different territories not rehashing it. — schopenhauer1

It's not new territory. There's nothing new here at all, it's exactly the same complaint you make every single time you post here.

The counter argument is going to be exactly the same too.

Why does this package seem justified to perpetuate onto more people born into the world? — schopenhauer1

We raise new generations to help alleviate what would otherwise be the suffering of existing generations. As most people seem to enjoy it more than they hate it, and most people intend for their children to lead a happy life, their own net happiness/pain is not a consideration. The only matter left to weigh against the good that new generations do is the affront to their autonomy that making the decision for them causes. Since the overwhelming majority of people do not place trivial matters of personal autonomy above the well-being of existing people, it's not an issue.

You (and a handful of other neo-liberal Randians) place autonomy much higher than others (in some specific areas). We all know that, you can't argue for or against it, so what's left to say?

Your passive-aggressive comments aren't appreciated. — schopenhauer1

I apologize, I truly don't mean to be. Honestly.

I just don't get why pick the same fight? — schopenhauer1

You started the thread! If you make the same arguments of course I'm going to give the same reply!

unless you yourself can find a way past yourself, and no that is not my job that is yours. — schopenhauer1

So if I disagree with you it is my job to find a way to agree with you? C'mon now.

If so then you should have the same job so:

to respect the fact that we have argued this same thing before, and to honor the fact that a new thread does not wipe away previous conversations, can you at least think of an argument I might give in the hypothetical thousand pages that would try to counter what you are saying, and frame it in a respectable way? — schopenhauer1

What we can focus on maybe to keep it more elevated (and not zero-sum) is see if whether keeping this structure going, is whether it is a political decision and why this political decision is seen as good, necessary, and cannot be criticized. — schopenhauer1

But I've talked about this.

"Is it worth it to keep this structure going"?

My answer: I don't care about evaluations of the structure as a whole, I only care about specific people. If you can't show me someone who gets harmed then I couldn't care less what "structures" are "harmed"

"Is it a political decision"?

My answer: If you mean a decision taken by looking at aggregates, not necessarily. You can have children because of the specific people they are likely to help. I'm not sure exactly if you would count that as "aggregate" or political but then again I'm not sure we're using the terms the same way.

"Why is it seen as good, necessary and cannot be criticized"?

My answer: Evolutionary reasons. And it's not so much "cannot be criticized" as "You will be shunned if you criticize it". Which is the case for any popular belief.

But then you tell me that you heard this before and so I should come up with ways to agree with you instead? Well of course you've heard it before because we've talked about this before a 1000 times.

If you think there's something new here then you gotta tell me what it is because I'm not seeing it. And I'm not trying to be rude, I just genuinely don't see how this is a new angle.

Just curious, do you and Isaac come in pairs now?

whether it is a political decision and why this political decision is seen as good, necessary, and cannot be criticized. — schopenhauer1

a) you've asked as question and then assumed your answer to it in the very same sentence - doesn't bode well for an open-minded discussion.

b) This one interests me most - what is the nature of "cannot be criticized? How 'cannot'? Are you not criticising it now? Are the police knocking at your door as we speak. What difference are you seeing between people disagreeing with your criticism (and so concluding it's invalid) and people somehow banning you from criticising?

Literally every single AN thread had the 3 of us :rofl:

Maybe we're just interested in the same topics.

You started the thread! If you make the same arguments of course I'm going to give the same reply! — khaled

So my main argument is basically, isn't this socio-economic-cultural structure, the maintenance and perpetuation of it indeed itself a political act? I mean, simply wearing a mask can be seen as taking one side or another, so cannot the position of AN, even though it seems to be diminished into more of a lifestyle choice or just a preference? I think it's more than that.

So if I disagree with you it is my job to find a way to agree with you? C'mon now. — khaled

After all the debate we already have, and you are choosing to jump on this thread to rehash it? Then out of the principle of charity, yes, at this point we should figure out a new course that doesn't lead to aggravation.

My answer: I don't care about evaluations of the structure as a whole, I only care about specific people. If you can't show me someone who gets harmed then I couldn't care less what "structures" are "harmed" — khaled

No, I don't mean about the structures.. I mean the people that must engage with the structure. That is where the harm is. You know that I would never (intentionally) make an argument that abstracts where harm takes place. Rather, the superstructure itself involves tasks which can be negatively evaluated as stated in OP.

My answer: If you mean a decision taken by looking at aggregates, not necessarily. You can have children because of the specific people they are likely to help. I'm not sure exactly if you would count that as "aggregate" or political but then again I'm not sure we're using the terms the same way. — khaled

I mean political as in there is some sort of agenda one wants to enact for other people in the world. "I want to see the world look a certain way.. This way of life is the way I want it to look, and so I want it enacted and perpetuated.. thus says I and thus I create new person who will endure this and he/she WILL like it (group-think yadayada feedback loop re-enforcing strengthening the groundless goodness of this structure that is the status quo).

My answer: Evolutionary reasons. And it's not so much "cannot be criticized" as "You will be shunned if you criticize it". Which is the case for any popular belief. — khaled

Yes, how can this be changed? What would it take? I mean, everything seems too intractable until it isn't. This shouldn't be any different just because it seems more intractable from our current vantage point. Saying evolutionary reasons opens up a whole debate. My hunch is that the preference for continuing this socio-eco-cultural structure is more of a cultural reinforcement.. group-think rather than anything inbuilt. Perhaps it is also magical thinking. People want there to be hope because if they think otherwise the "gods" will throw their thunderbolt for their lack of faith. I do not deny people have some weird irrational fear of universe-retribution for eschewing the universe that has been so "benevolently" bestowed upon them. Even atheists may have these weird subconscious superstitions surrounding hope and not tempting the "gods". I am not sure if my idea is being conveyed well here...But superstition does seem almost ingrained in human psyche.. However, that too is ratcheted up more from how the human develops in a culture that promotes superstitious thinking.

If you think there's something new here then you gotta tell me what it is because I'm not seeing it. And I'm not trying to be rude, I just genuinely don't see how this is a new angle. — khaled

I'm hoping to get new and interesting conversations. If you don't see it as a new angle, are you then writing in this thread to put me in my place and tell me how it is? What is your intention here, simply to say, "Stop posting about this topic Schop". Why not just let the thread ride out with other participants then? How does it really harm you if I want to post about this?

Completely by chance, I found this NYT article which does exactly what I am saying. It is looking at procreation as some aggregate where individuals are simply utils to be used to increase productivity. This is definitely seeing it as political: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/opinion/coronavirus-baby-bust.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage.

I mean political as in there is some sort of agenda one wants to enact for other people in the world — schopenhauer1

Then antinatalism is also political.

Having agendas isn’t inherently bad. It depends on the agenda.

Yes, how can this be changed? — schopenhauer1

It couldn’t. The society that has people shun the members that disagree with the status quo will last longer than the society that doesn’t. Shunning in this way is evolutionarily advantageous so there’s no changing it. It’s gonna keep happening. Too much of it is evolutionarily disadvantageous though.

But in any case, it will never be evolutionarily advantageous NOT to shun the belief that will lead to extinction. By definition. This is assuming shunning is effecting at deterring the spread of ideas, which I think is a reasonable assumption.

This shouldn't be any different just because it seems more intractable from our current vantage point. — schopenhauer1

AN is on a whole new scale. Every time there has been a massive social movement, it was because an old belief was found harmful to the social order as a whole. It was because changing a belief results in a better society. Having children will never be found that way. Changing that belief results in no society.

My hunch is that the preference for continuing this socio-eco-cultural structure is more of a cultural reinforcement.. group-think rather than anything inbuilt. — schopenhauer1

Highly doubt it. All animals reproduce. And none of them have culture except us. I think it’s more reasonable to assume then to assume it’s not culture. Or at least not purely culture.

Another reason it’s not purely culture: If it was purely cultural we wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. You need thousands of people, a couple generations, and a couple decades at least before you get culture. How do you reckon we got all that sorted if culture is what tells people to have kids?

I do not deny people have some weird irrational fear of universe-retribution for eschewing the universe that has been so "benevolently" bestowed upon them. — schopenhauer1

Maybe a part of it. But not a large part. All animals reproduce. None of them fear universe-retribution while doing it I’d wager.

If you don't see it as a new angle, are you then writing in this thread to put me in my place and tell me how it is? — schopenhauer1

Well that’s an odd way to frame it...

You argue the same thing. I respond the same way. You accuse me of rehashing. If anyone is rehashing it’s you.

If you don’t want to hear the same response, don’t write the same argument. I’m responding to anything you write. Old or not. I don’t see what’s unfair or combative about that. If you don’t want me to respond at all, you shouldn’t have started a thread.

How does it really harm you if I want to post about this? — schopenhauer1

How does it harm you if I wanna respond to it?

Rather, the superstructure itself involves tasks which can be negatively evaluated as stated in OP — schopenhauer1

Such as? I don’t understand how a “superstructure” has tasks. Not sure what you mean.

even though it seems to be diminished into more of a lifestyle choice or just a preference? — schopenhauer1

Not in my experience. When I told people “Having kids is wrong” they reacted very differently to when others told them “I don’t want to have kids”. I think people do understand it’s a stance. Just they think it’s invalid. And repulsive.

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view?

I think the simple reason this movement is condemned is that it is ugly. To look upon and preach that the world as an imposition, escapable only by suicide and self-sterilization, is itself a negative human activity, and many don’t like believing or participating in it. We can’t paint dog shit on a canvas and expect people to condone and praise it.

Having agendas isn’t inherently bad. It depends on the agenda. — khaled

Paternalism then. There is nothing self-justifying of the agenda of life itself. It's just another hypothetical imperative that can keep being questioned in comparison to people who do not want this agenda, or be compared to the agenda of not causing harm or some other counter to the imperative itself that life must be perpetuated and society must be perpetuated and people must be born to deal with it and engage with it and have the choice for suicide or therapy to cope with it.

Changing that belief results in no society. — khaled

I am more interested in the movement itself of the people advocating for AN and the people against AN as they are living.. I'm not focusing on the consequence here but the implications for us the living as we hash this political yay/nay out.

Highly doubt it. All animals reproduce. And none of them have culture except us. I think it’s more reasonable to assume then to assume it’s not culture. Or at least not purely culture.

Another reason it’s not purely culture: If it was purely cultural we wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. You need thousands of people, a couple generations, and a couple decades at least before you get culture. How do you reckon we got all that sorted if culture is what tells people to have kids? — khaled

Maybe a part of it. But not a large part. All animals reproduce. None of them fear universe-retribution while doing it I’d wager. — khaled

But humans have a unique ability for superstition. When things are going well, people don't want want to test fate. When things go crummy, that's when they are more amenable to sympathize.

Procreation is caught up in so many things.. relationships, marriage, tribal relations. It is symbolic as much as it is some physical thing. There is a social dance, there is expectations, etc. It isn't akin to a bowel movement, breathing, the palmer reflex, the suckling reflex, etc. It is learned in development. I would bet you a feral person would not catch on really.

You argue the same thing. I respond the same way. You accuse me of rehashing. If anyone is rehashing it’s you. — khaled

But I don't intend for you specifically to answer. I know your position well. We've been through this before and so between us specifically, there is no other need to engage.

If you don’t want to hear the same response, don’t write the same argument. I’m responding to anything you write. Old or not. I don’t see what’s unfair or combative about that. If you don’t want me to respond at all, you shouldn’t have started a thread. — khaled

I just don't get why you want to respond anymore. What do you care? Obviously I care a great deal on this topic, but why do you care so much to rebut it? For some reason then this topic resonates with you as well, even if just to be contrarian.. However, I can't but feel if it is just to be contrarian, you do have a bugaboo to put me in my place rather than want to have a non-zero-sum-game conversation. That then makes me resentful and posts become hostile, and tedious. But maybe that is your aim- to wear me out... I've been doing this for a while. Clearly that's not something I do easily on this topic.

Not in my experience. When I told people “Having kids is wrong” they reacted very differently to when others told them “I don’t want to have kids”. I think people do understand it’s a stance. Just they think it’s invalid. And repulsive. — khaled

I mean, you want to be tactful when presenting it, but that is fine if they are repulsed. Political debates are often knockdown drag out.. This is THE fundamental debate of whether to have a society at all, not just what kind of society. The debate of whether to have a society at all is even more fundamental and shouldn't be assumed that the answer is a resounding YES. And that is my main point here.


Also, did you read the NYT article? What are your thoughts there?

My question to you then is why do the people who want to perpetuate this "way of life" get to make the rules and the contrarians are the ones to go fuck off and commit suicide if they don't like it? Might makes right, right? — schopenhauer1

No. It's that the twin aspects of path of least effort (dumbing minds) and path of least action (humping bodies) have predominated @1000:1 ratio (at least) for hundreds of millennia.

Why is the default that getting to perpetuate the political-economic-cultural (what we do now) on yet more people is somehow "good" for them and for the universe?

Whether or not it's "good" ..., pro-natality is, as it's always been, more profitable for "political-economic-cultural" elites than not.

Why is this just default?

Apparently because there literally isn't a viable alternate (re: fossil record).

If I were to say to you that you should not foist your view on others by not procreating other people who will have to take on the human enterprise who may not find this good, what would you say? — schopenhauer1

I'd say "You're entitled to that opinion".

... to be able to talk with a friend about the horrors of life and make jokes about it is such a relief that life actually becomes pleasant for awhile. Kafka was a comedian. Dostoevsky was a comedian. The best clowns have tears in their eyes. — norm

"The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new." ~Samuel Beckett

There is nothing self-justifying of the agenda of life itself. — schopenhauer1

Or of the agenda of AN. There is nothing self justifying of any agenda.

but the implications for us the living as we hash this political yay/nay out. — schopenhauer1

It won’t be hashed out because the nays will die out much faster than the yays

Procreation is caught up in so many things.. relationships, marriage, tribal relations. It is symbolic as much as it is some physical thing. There is a social dance, there is expectations, etc. It isn't akin to a bowel movement, breathing, the palmer reflex, the suckling reflex, etc. It is learned in development. — schopenhauer1

Sure there is a whole lot of cultural accessory around it. But it is still an instinct. This doesn’t address my argument as to why.

The debate of whether to have a society at all is even more fundamental and shouldn't be assumed that the answer is a resounding YES — schopenhauer1

Sure. But at any given point in history the answer will always be yes.

I think the simple reason this movement is condemned is that it is ugly. To look upon and preach that the world as an imposition, escapable only by suicide and self-sterilization, is itself a negative human activity, and many don’t like believing or participating in it. We can’t paint dog shit on a canvas and expect people to condone and praise it. — NOS4A2

Right, but foisting the engagement with a whole socio-economic-political structure is just a-okay though right? And what else is the choice if not commit suicide or "get with the program that was foisted upon you"? Your answer is probably circular.. "Well, because it's the thing you should DO!! You don't want to look at that ugly alternative of simply stopping the foisting, right?".

But I get what you're saying. At first glance, it's dark. It's literally hopeless and people like the idea of hope.

one can bitch, moan, and gripe — schopenhauer1

:lol: Now there's some real regret. But this does bring up a point that other animals cannot evaluate like we can. A fish cannot say to themselves, "God damn it, each and every fuckn day I have to search this stream for more bugs and algae and try to avoid being eaten by the bear/human/bigger fish/predator". But our unique species, whilst doing the very activities necessary to survive can say, "God damn it, I have to do this X, Y, Z task I rather not do". Progress I guess?

No. It's that the twin aspects of path of least effort (dumbing minds) and path of least action (humping bodies) have predominated 1000:1 ratio (at least) for hundreds of millennia. — 180 Proof

Agreed there.

Whether or not it's "good" ..., pro-natality is, as it's always been, most profitable for "political-economic-cultural" elites than not. — 180 Proof

YES. And here is a point I'm also trying to highlight. Who or what benefits from this arrangement that people must be born to de facto engage with the political-economic-cultural structure? Why is it necessary for people to experience it and continue it?

I'd say "You're entitled to that opinion". — 180 Proof

My opinion doesn't lead anybody (literally) to be forced into a situation. The otherside does. So it's more than opinion, its action creating situations for other people.. In other words, it is political in its most fundamental sense. It is time for the "NAYs" to make their voice heard.. to call for others to passively NOT foist this structure onto others.

Or of the agenda of AN. There is nothing self justifying of any agenda. — khaled

But AN constantly must be on the defensive (as we speak actually), and yet the other side does not, so you see why it seems like there's no justification necessary for the other side because we are so used to it being the given.

It won’t be hashed out because the nays will die out much faster than the yays — khaled

No fossil record as @180 Proof said. Again, I am not worried as much as the outcomes as how this is hashed out- the attitudes of those who are currently running society. We can rebel against it, whilst still of course having to deal with it. It's not a contradiction to realize one cannot escape but rebel nonetheless via antinatalism. I believe one time @Inyenzi mentioned its akin to "going on strike".

Sure there is a whole lot of cultural accessory around it. But it is still an instinct. This doesn’t address my argument as to why. — khaled

What was your argument then? You mentioned evolution.. In our species culture is part of how evolution develops. We are a "symbolic species" (pace Terrence Deacon). What makes procreation an instinct really, though? Sexual pleasure and how it is used are two different things, often learned, often a choice, and is not a given. Not pursuing it doesn't do anything detrimental to your body either. So again, not so cut-and-dry.

Sure. But at any given point in history the answer will always be yes. — khaled

Sure, but that's because AN thinking wasn't even on the radar in any significant way. It's time it has more of a presence on the political discourse as it IS political in nature. It affects others, and the whole structure of being, so yep it is.

But AN constantly must be on the defensive (as we speak actually), and yet the other side does not — schopenhauer1

Who said that?

it seems like there's no justification necessary for the other side because we are so used to it being the given. — schopenhauer1

Keyword: Seems

What was your argument then? — schopenhauer1

These 2:

Highly doubt it. All animals reproduce. And none of them have culture except us. I think it’s more reasonable to assume then to assume it’s not culture. Or at least not purely culture.

Another reason it’s not purely culture: If it was purely cultural we wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. You need thousands of people, a couple generations, and a couple decades at least before you get culture. How do you reckon we got all that sorted if culture is what tells people to have kids? — khaled

Sure, but that's because AN thinking wasn't even on the radar in any significant way. — schopenhauer1

I'd say it was just about on the radar as it is now, in the sense that the "percentage of antinatalists" hasn't changed. Heck it might have gone down. Antinatalism dates way back. It's just that with the internet, more people than ever are exposed to it.

"The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new." ~Samuel Beckett — 180 Proof

Beckett's another example of first-rate comedian.

Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness.

How is it that saying the worst, confessing the thing we think we fear, is such a relief? There's some kind of complicated, counter-intuitive transcendence involved.

Yes, Seinfeld and the like is a sort of catharsis. But the comedy makes more palatable. — schopenhauer1

It is hard to laugh during a root canal, no doubt. I suppose I'm saying that 'spiritual' pain is sometimes contaminated by a wicked pleasure (and the reverse.)

It is hard to laugh during a root canal, no doubt. I suppose I'm saying that 'spiritual' pain is sometimes contaminated by a wicked pleasure (and the reverse.) — norm

Yes, hence I think there should be opportunities for communities that allow for catharsis.