And your solution to this concern; is to advocate for the extinction of your species through their global consent. is this correct? That's your solution? — universeness

No. I don't advocate anything, nor am I in the business of solving the world's problems.

I hope that we will, as you mentioned, stand united—for the good of all. — DA671

I think we can safely say that you and I stand united in our opposition to antinatalists and we probably represent an overwhelming global majority. If humans do go extinct at some point in the future I think it will have little to do with the efforts of or noises from antinatalists.

You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. — Isaac

Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? — Isaac

My chief concern was never the minimizing of harm to others (besides that which might be caused by myself), or the welfare of others. I see those as noble goals, assuming one doesn't go about achieving them recklessly.

The inaction resulting from your uncertainty might cause harm to others. — Isaac

Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state.

vast majority at your party — universeness

This statement is obviously false! Are you saying antinatalists are a fringe, minority group? I'm not so sure - remember one Doomsday factor is overpopulation and it gets worse by the minute (google population clocks).

Also what's the exchange rate between tears & smiles? How many :sad: are worth 1 :smile: or conversly how many :smile: are worth 1 :sad: ? Surely, the conversiom factor is not 1. What you're tryin' to say is that if, in your family, only your bro/sis is :sad: , it's absolutely ok. Wouldn't her sobbing drag your entire family's happiness score down into the bloody abyss?

I'm all out.

:pray: :up:

My chief concern was never the minimizing of harm to others (besides that which might be caused by myself), or the welfare of others. — Tzeentch

Then what is your chief concern?

Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state. — Tzeentch

So you don't breathe, eat or move then? You are never inactive, so you're always doing. The choice is over what to do.

This statement is obviously false! Are you saying antinatalists are a fringe, minority group? — Agent Smith

Yes I am. The fact that the human population of the Earth has been increasing since the days of the first Homo Sapiens is proof enough for me.

overpopulation — Agent Smith

How did that happen based on your suggestion of antinatalist populism?

Surely, the conversiom factor is not 1. What you're tryin' to say is that if, in your family, only your bro/sis is :sad: , it's absolutely ok. Wouldn't her sobbing drag down your entire family's happiness score? — Agent Smith

No I already told you before, I would be one of the people at a party who tries to cheer up anyone who looks like they are not enjoying themselves but I would not be the pessimist who would declare the party bollocks because of some sad people at the party. Maybe their dog just died, who knows. Your responsibility is to help them, if you can, not conclude that antinatalist BS has been exemplified as correct and it would be better if EVERYONE at your party had not been born because one or two or ten of them have faces that look :sad:

Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state — Tzeentch

So you see an innocent getting attacked and you take no action? Inaction may not cause the harm but it can help maintain it. Just like no reproduction would cause the harm of making a species extinct!

Then what is your chief concern? — Isaac

The search for truth and wisdom, I suppose.

So you don't breathe, eat or move then? You are never inactive, so you're always doing. The choice is over what to do. — Isaac

With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation.

I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch

So you willingly leave yourself open to accusations of cowardice? Should the world have stood by and not interfered with the Nazi plans for all people they considered inferiors?

So you willingly leave yourself open to accusations of cowardice? — universeness

Sure.

Should the world have stood by and not interfered with the Nazi plans for all people they considered inferiors? — universeness

"The world" should have done as they saw fit at that particular time.

A lot of your replies to me seem to assume I have all sorts of opinions about what other people should do. I don't. The only reason I'm here is to test the principles I use to guide my decisions in life. What people do with the arguments I present here is completely up to them, and it doesn't matter to me.

Then what is your chief concern? — Isaac


The search for truth and wisdom, I suppose. — Tzeentch

How does that concern affect the decision to procreate? Is non-procreation more truthful?

With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch

And how does that assist the search for truth?

If someone is saying that inaction should always be preferred, they seem to be implying that it is good. However, if it is good that inaction prevents harm, it is also bad that it prevents future goods. If one is arguing that inaction is merely neutral (and this is disputable considering that intentional inaction can still cause harms to grow, which isn't good), then I do not see why neutrality should be chosen over something that can be (for most people) good.

What gives A the right to interfere unasked? What's the sacrifical lamb to make of this? — Tzeentch

This is more to the spirit of the OP.. Great arguments going on here, but this specific thread is about if/when/the right to make impositions on others unnecessarily.. The key word you used there was "unasked".. Otherwise it could just be typical ameliorating greater with lesser harms with a bad outcome, but someone who sought the help or something.

How does that concern affect the decision to procreate? Is non-procreation more truthful? — Isaac

No, but when you say:

You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. — Isaac

Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? — Isaac

It seems to imply some duty to pursue these things (minimizing harm to others and acting for the welfare of others), to which I replied that those things are not my chief concern. I see no such duty, except perhaps minimizing the harm I myself cause to others directly, that is to say by my action.

The primary reason that procreation needs to be regarded critically is that there's a non-trivial risk of harming others. However, the reason I would refrain from procreation is because I cannot see a justification for the imposition on another, as per the thread's subject.

However, if it is good that inaction prevents harm, ... — DA671

Inaction or non-interference is literally not to get involved.

I do not see why neutrality should be chosen over something that can be (for most people) good. — DA671

I'm not saying it should be, but I'm saying it can be chosen and doing so is a neutral action. People don't have a right to another's action, just because they believe it to be good for them.

It can still have consequences. Of course, it involves non-involvement.

I am fine with it being a possible choice. In fact, if the risk is greater, it should be preferred. However, if the possibility of an overall good outcome (it may not be perfect) is reasonably high, I believe that it is better to act than to be "neutral". Considering that inexistent beings cannot ask for the benefits of life, I believe that if one is concerned about violating rights, they should also be glad about bestowing goods that one could not have asked for before existing. My worldview does not begin and end with impositions (or some divine gift of life that all souls should be forced to give). Unasked harms matter, but so do goods that non-existent beings are unable to solicit. The greater good of existing people is also quite important, but I do not think that has to be the only pertinent factor (assuming that creation can be good/bad for the person who is born).

Those who advocate non-interference cannot then argue against others choosing to reproduce and not be called a hypocrite.

I believe I grasped the gist of the OP's antinatalism.

Pronatalists are of the opinion that a person (the child) will share the same values as his/her parents and agree to their assessment of what kind, and how much, of that kind of suffering s/he will consider acceptable. This assumption is unjustified. People suicide for various reasons that differ from one another in kind & degree!

Unfortunately, the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted to, in their turn, assume that children will have the same thoughts about life & suffering as theirs. This is also, sadly for the antinatalist, wrong.

In short, the subjective nature of joy/sorrow precludes both antintalism & natalism.

What next?

Left to the reader as an exercise. — Agent Smith

You have almost grasped it.

When you say "the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted...to assume.."

However, it doesn't cut both ways (i.e. the asymmetry). That is to say, no actual person is deprived (not good or bad). You did not unnecessarily impose suffering onto another, that can surely be counted as good, no?

EDIT: In other words, the collateral damage only goes one way, not both ways.

It can still have consequences. — DA671

Non-interference does not have consequences.

If I see a man drowning in the ocean and for whatever reason choose not to try and save him, then his drowning is not the consequence of my choice not to get involved, but of whatever circumstance put the man in the water.

However, if the possibility of an overall good outcome (it may not be perfect) is reasonably high, I believe that it is better to act than to be "neutral". — DA671

In the absence of absolute certainty there is such a thing as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but I don't agree that it applies to the question of procreation.

@Tzeentch@Agent Smith@Isaac

But beyond the idea of the gamble, which is mainly about the "unforeseen harms" (third point), the first two are intended and known by the parent:
1.that there are only a certain range of choices for the person born, and that THESE CHOICES are good FOR THEM

2. There are a range of harms, and THESE HARMS are acceptable FOR THEM.

When is it ever okay to assume for another that these choices and harms are good and acceptable for someone else? I think this goes beyond just "not knowing" (which Tzeentch makes a great point of). That is part of it, but it is also not knowing and then going ahead and thinking that your view of harms and what choices are meaningful or good to encounter, are something others should experience (because YOU think it).

EDIT: If I sit you in a manufacturing plant and have you make widgets for 8 hours a day and say this is MEANINGFUL.. you will just say, this is what YOU think is meaningful..

Then the inevitable response is, "Well, life has way more CHOICES than just a manufacturing job making widgets!"..

But my point is EVEN THESE RANGE OF CHOICES are limited.. one ASSUMES these range of choices are something the other person would want to choose from.. And there are limitations based on the situatedness and de facto realities of physical and cultural existence.

Then the natalist may pull out their final defense.. The "Most people" defense...They'll claim:
"I have a right to do this to another because MOST PEOPLE would have wanted this".. But is there a situation you would do that to someone else (unasked/unnecessarily)? But I feel there is more here than just that idea too... I'll have to come back to it..

Ok, I have come back to it.. It's something to do with the working in the manufacturing plant making widgets.. Objectively, the person could be wrong about what is meaningful. Subjectively, the person could be wrong for that person for what is meaningful. There is something not right about aggressively assuming for others what is meaningful and what is acceptable harm for someone else.

When is it ever okay to assume for another that these choices and harms are good and acceptable for someone else? — schopenhauer1

It certainly isn't acceptable by default. Perhaps in emergency situations? But even then I would argue that one is obligated to be certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) that one isn't making the situation even worse.

It becomes clear how the antinatalist viewpoint allows them to excuse themselves from any responsibility for their maintenance of human suffrage due to their claim that it's okay to standby and watch. Perhaps they would add to the words on the American statue of liberty. 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses and we antinatalists will standby and watch them suffer.'
The antinatalists exclaim 'tut, tut these poor, tired, huddled masses are upsetting my sensitive persona. The only sensible decision is to help end all life in the Universe by asking all humans to stop reproducing. :halo:

It's even more fascinating to read antinatalism in its platitudinal mode. The old 'you can attract more flies with sugar than vinegar' approach. :roll:

I agree that one is not directly responsible for what happened. Nevertheless, their inaction did cause the person to continue to drown, since if they had acted, this negative could have been stopped. But obviously, allowing a harm is not the same as actively causing it. Here's how Google defines consequence (definition is from Oxford Languages): "a result or effect". Not acting could mean that one is not the cause of an effect, but it could mean that they are the cause of that event not ceasing/changing. I would say that if it is better than harms don't exist, then it is also worse that the benefits do not.

I believe that it does apply to procreation, provided one also takes the benefits into account.

If the absence of happiness is not bad because there isn't any deprivation being felt by someone, then neither can the absence of suffering be good, since this does not lead to a satisfied state for anybody either. But if one is not saying that the absence of suffering is good and is merely suggesting that neutrality is better than "impositions" (though I do not see how actions that do not frustrate the interests of someone could be called impositions), then someone else could also point out that bestowing goods that non-existent beings are unable to demand is preferable to a valueless state of affairs.

Because causing harm to others is bad. — Tzeentch

"Causing harm" to imaginary people is ... imaginary. You're either incorrigible or delusional. :zip:

I see no such duty, except perhaps minimizing the harm I myself cause to others directly, that is to say by my action. — Tzeentch

This is the one I'm asking about. And...

the reason I would refrain from procreation is because I cannot see a justification for the imposition on another, — Tzeentch

...

Why?

Are these just spontaneous feeling you have, not derived from any deeper objective? They seem, no offense meant, really odd, and intriguing for that reason.

Nevertheless, their inaction did cause the person to drown, ... — DA671

This is exactly the point - the inaction did not cause anything.

And just because one is aware of the drowning, it doesn't make one the cause.

I am sure you are aware of certain sufferings in which you could conceivably interfere (homelessness, third-world hunger, etc.). Does your awareness of it and your ability to interfere now make you the cause of it? Is it a moral slight that you are not interfering and doing everything you can to solve this issue?

I think not.

Are these just spontaneous feeling you have, not derived from any deeper objective? They seem, no offense meant, really odd, and intriguing for that reason. — Isaac

They're arrived at through reason. First, individuals do not like being harmed. Their will is as good as mine, so I should take care not to harm them and thus violate their will.

Second, if I impose something on someone, I may violate their will. Maybe there is a situation conceivable where this is justified, but then I would need to make a convincing case for it. So far I haven't seen it.

You talk about meaning, I'm talking about good. Two different objectives. What is meaningful is fine being subjective. We can each make our own choices. What is 'good' is not fine being subjective because you sffdct me and I affect you, we share common resources, we share space, we collaborate to achieve stuff we couldn't achieve alone. We must come up with an agreement as to what constitutes the common good.

Once we have such an agreement, the maintenance of it is all morality is. Anything else is pointless. You could say "you mustn't do X", " you must do Y", but why? Who sets these bizarre rules and why ought we obey them?

If you don't want to build a better community, if you don't care for their welfare, then that's fine, you do you, but you've got no business with morality, the subject matter of which is the welfare of our community. Anything less is just a set of arbitrary rules for no purpose.

So your concern for the autonomy of the as yet unborn is noble, important, but completely pointless unless in the service of the larger goal of community welfare. Otherwise, why? Why bother with autonomy? Why bother with rights? Why bother with dignity? What's the purpose?

First, individuals do not like being harmed. Their will is as good as mine, so I should take care not to harm them and thus violate their will.

Second, if I impose something on someone, I may violate their will. — Tzeentch

So your first clashes with your second. Your objective is unachievable. You might as well toss a coin.

The second comes forth from the first. The first takes precedence, but there may be situations conceivable where it is justified to impose. We're exploring whether we can find one here.

I don't see any contradiction here, or any objective for that matter.

If you believe the first is a hard rule and the second shouldn't even be considered, then we are done here, no?