Looks like the aim is at you. Enjoy the spotlight. I think you can easily handle it. — universeness

I'll do my best.

Remember! You are not allowed any exclamation of BS or your more polite 'Totally absurd!'

To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should.

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.

Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.

No one gets to experience anything good then either do they? — Benj96

Not a problem for anyone, literally, is it?

Would you be satisfied taking away all the people in love (with eachother, with their kids, with their jobs, with food, entertainment friends etc, people living their life the best they can and enjoying it) just for the sake of not existing at all? — Benj96

I’m not taking away anything from anyone. But if you explore that implication you would be facing problems of using peoples suffering for personal gains. That’s your arguments problem though, not ANs.

Sounds super boring tbh. — Benj96

Boring universes aren’t a reason to this make them less boring by introducing X negative unnecessarily.

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.

Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so. — Tzeentch

Exactly!

Thanks for the interesting exchange. I'm away offline for a while to do some other stuff and lick all those wounds you inflicted on me. :joke:

Thanks for the interesting exchange. I'm away offline for a while to do some other stuff and lick all those wounds you inflicted on me. — universeness

Good luck with it.

To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should. — Tzeentch

Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition. — Tzeentch

Yes you can't impose on anyone. But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. So the best they can do is grow up, help others and in that way try to mitigate the blame, shame, guilt etc that comes with ignoring others that exist and are in need

Not a problem for anyone, literally, is it? — schopenhauer1

And yet it's merely hypothetical because you're not omnipotent - you don't have the ability to make antinatalism come to fruition. So we should probably just settle for what we do have - the fact that we are here already.

Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.

Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it

I’m not taking away anything from anyone. But if you explore that implication you would be facing problems of using peoples suffering for personal gains. That’s your arguments problem though, not ANs. — schopenhauer1

I'm merely saying that existence is polarised. Non-existence is neutral. If one wants to exist they must contend with navigating those opposites - the good, the bad. Etc
But they have a choice in that case dont they. To improve or worsen the situation.

You can have Good, co-operative humanitarian systems where evil is maximised to the most conceptual idea possible and minimised in the most physically acted way.

That's what entertainment is. When we indulge the thought of good and evil at war with one another without ever manifesting actual criminal things/evil acts against eachother.

That way both evil and good can exist (evil as a concept) and good as the physical world. And a good physically world is an acceptable reason to want to exist. Its our choice whether we do that.

Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it — Benj96

As you say, I’m not responsible for what I can’t know. I do know how birth is a major imposition and can be prevented so moot point.

But they have a choice in that case dont they. To improve or worsen the situation. — Benj96

Not the AN issue.

And a good physically world is an acceptable reason to want to exist. Its our choice whether we do that. — Benj96

Your reasons shouldn’t become another’s issue/problem/burden to overcome/imposition.

Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them — Benj96

That does not change the nature of an imposition.

If I impose something on you, with the intention of "helping you through it", that doesn't suddenly make my act of imposing any less immoral.

But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. — Benj96

The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.

If I impose something on you, with the intention of "helping you through it", that doesn't suddenly make my act of imposing any less immoral. — Tzeentch

Yep

The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there. — Tzeentch

Yep

Not the AN issue. — schopenhauer1

No not an issue of antinatalism as a concept. But it is a "you as a person" issue no? I mean im sure you go about living your life, enjoying things, taking care of your loved ones, watching TV etc. Because all these things are good right? You desire them.

How then do you reconcile you antinatalist ideal with your current life? It doesn't make sense to me. Everyone who continues to brave it in the world, to strive forward and survive, has hope. They have to. People who lose almost all hope and fall into the deepest pits of depression are vulnerable to violating their own right to life.

So as far as i know everyone who lives has a reason to. They believe there is something worthwhile, something good to hold onto right? That's why I disgree with antinatalism as anything esle than just a concept.
I think people who live want to continue living. And there's nothing wrong with that we shouldn't be guilty for being born when we can inspire happiness in others or at least try.

I don't think offering people ideas, suggestions, possibilities of new ways of thinking is imposing. You don't have to accept anything im saying. You're free to believe whatever you want. I just want to try to do right by others if I can and if they'll allow me.
We can leave it at that and just agree to disagree if you want.

That does not change the nature of an imposition. — Tzeentch

How is it imposing to make suggestions? They're just suggestions. You can choose whether to take it on board or not. That's your call, ball in your court. Imposing would be to force you to agree or accept something.

I won't do that. You cant offer anything to someone who doesn't want it. All I can do is give my perspective and be ignored, or maybe if someone decides, listened to.

I'm talking about the act of creating a child, which is an imposition upon the child.

The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.
24m — Tzeentch

Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful?

For me: People have evolved the means to reproduce as its biological and natural. All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary.

As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business.
I don't dare impose on anyone's right to or not to have children as they have their own rights and autonomy.

I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. We are equals.
I do enjoy living but personally I don't want my own child. I'm happy to be an uncle.

Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful? — Benj96

The point at which they decide to have children.

Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action.

All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary. — Benj96

I wasn't aware that nature was ever consulted on this issue. What did it say?

As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business. — Benj96

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.

I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. — Benj96

That's exactly the type of power parents exercise over their children, though.

The point at which they decide to have children. — Tzeentch

So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc?

So during their whole life even if they don't have children and they go around committing the most heinous atrocities they're not guilty because they didn't have children? Or perhaps is having children not as evil as I dunno, raping pillaging and plundering, mass genocides etc.

If you had the choice between having a child or having Hitler exist in the world again... Which would you pick?

Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action. — Tzeentch

Well what I'm trying to point out is I think it's a moral fixation that is overshadowed by quite frankly much worse things that could and are happening right now in the world that does exist and does have people in it.

To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? And raising them to be outstanding citizens. A lack of self belief the I suspect.

So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc? — Benj96

That's obviously not what I'm saying.

To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? — Benj96

No.

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.

That's obviously not what I'm saying — Tzeentch

Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? I don't want to make assumptions but I will follow the logic of what you present in your arguments.

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?.

People don't ask the stories they imagine if they would like to written down as a novel. We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit.

If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? I doubt Hitlers parents knew what they would be creating when they reproduced. So we can't blame the act of being born inherently. We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. Because what they've made is another agent - with their own agenda and self determination, decisions to make, responsibilities to take on. But never is that a reason not to exist at all.

Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction that does not involve the fusion of gametes or change in the number of chromosomes. The offspring that arise by asexual reproduction from either unicellular or multicellular organisms inherit the full set of genes of their single parent. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as archaea and bacteria. Many eukaryotic organisms including plants, animals, and fungi can also reproduce asexually. In vertebrates, the most common form of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, which is typically used as an alternative to sexual reproduction in times when reproductive opportunities are limited.

While all prokaryotes reproduce without the formation and fusion of gametes, mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction can be likened to sexual reproduction in the sense of genetic recombination in meiosis.

Animals that reproduce asexually:
The Komodo dragon, the Whiptail lizard, Bees, Wasps, Starfish and many more, even some Shark species reproduce through parthenogenesis.

Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? How about a sentient alien species that reproduces asexually? If antinatalism is based on any natural imperative the why does asexual reproduction exist?
Would the burden of blame for procreation be lifted if a human could reproduce asexually?
If so then perhaps all you antinatalists should be compelled to pool your intellect and study biology and see if you can offer asexual reproduction to humans of the future and then you would have helped humans remove some of that guilt for reproducing that you feel so happy about trying to impose on them.

If humans go extinct and the next sentient species to dominate the Earth reproduces asexually, then that would be the termination point for anti-natalist BS, yes?

Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? — Benj96

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition. — Tzeentch

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

___________________

It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?. — Benj96

It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf?

We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit. — Benj96

And there are many things one could create that don't involve imposing monumental decisions and possibly a lifetime of suffering on another.

Also, good faith is not an excuse. Many atrocities were committed by individuals who thought they were doing good, and tragically many unhappy people are born from well-intentioned parents. Ignorance is not an excuse.

If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? — Benj96

They can't. Sounds like a darn good reason not to make such a decision on someone else's behalf.

We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. — Benj96

No, we can blame the hubris of the parents who voluntarily hurled someone into life's crucible - into conditions over which they had little control and of which they had little knowledge.

Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? — universeness

It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life.

It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf? — Tzeentch

Who? Who is the someone? The yet to be born? How do I talk them what's their number? Email? Perhaps WhatsApp?

Dilemmas apply to conscious agents that "already" exist and can make decisions. They don't apply to non existing possibilities. You can't ask all your future possible children who wants to be alive? Therefore you cannot treat them as already existing agents. Only potential ones. They don't have a say because they aren't alive. Just as I cannot ask my dead great great grandmother whats her ethical attitude towards Facebook, or climate change, or autocracies.

You as the the one who is capable of creating living agents (assuming you have a partner and you're both fertile) have the option to make them or not. You do not however that that option for all peoples will - everyone else's personal choice as to whether they want to reproduce.

If you want to abstain from fathering children, if you want to remove your own genetics from the constant competing evolution of life, that's fine. No one is going to judge you for your decision to not procreate.

They would kindly ask you to respect their own autonomy of choice in a likewise manner.

The reason antinatalism isn't the predominant belief already, the reason we haven't all purposely gone extinct by now, probably means that antinatalism doesn't nor has it ever nor will it ever make much sense to the majority.

If an infertile couple approached me devastated by their inability to have kids, I think telling them "well you shouldnt have kids anyways" is not particularly empathetic.

It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life. — Tzeentch

Based on what argument? Humans would have no choice regarding reproduction, if it was asexual.
Some living species do reproduce asexually, no intelligent species does so yet but if humans went extinct then who knows what species will fill the gap. How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. No choice involved!

possibly a lifetime of suffering on another. — Tzeentch

"Possibly" being the key word. We don't know the future so we don't know if it will be all suffering or actually pleasant and doable. We can't make the world perfect for our future chindren. No generation has ever managed that. We can however educate them and give them the tools to combat adversity themselves. A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything, people wouldnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Someone could be like hey let's do this (and everyone would say oh its already done sorry. You've been beaten to the punchline). We would have no free will. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death.