If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".
Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born. — Tzeentch

So, do you agree that if an intelligent species reproduced asexually then antinatalism as an option dies?
So, would the morality issue you champion. Does that not give 'nature, evolution, natural selection,' the upper hand over your morality issue? Natural selection can and has produced asexual species showing that antinatalism, as irrational as it is, is only applicable to species who reproduce through sex or through some future transhuman process. We also have the evidence that the universe has already passed the event of life creation. This, to me, makes antinatalism very unlikely to succeed even if we were imbalanced enough to all vote for it.

And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of? — Tzeentch

I answered this at the end of my last post to you:

You are an antinatalist because you think it's immoral not to be such, as you think reproduction is an imposition on those who are born, as you did not have their consent. You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? I — universeness

Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent. — Tzeentch

I agree, but we are not currently in danger of extinction due to lack of reproduction, so they are able to make such choices and overrule the natural imperative to reproduce but they may have to experience some suffering due to having to make that choice. Is it moral that the rich and powerful have more choice over reproduction that the poor? The poor used to have lots of kids as they believed the more kids you have the more chance you will be looked after when your are old. That didnt work out well either, it mostly failed. Desperate, poorly conceived solutions like antinatalism or having 20 kids will normally fail.

It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking. — Tzeentch

Hah! this from someone who cherry-picks from aspects of human constructions of morality to peddle an antinatalist stance. :roll:

But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently!
— universeness

I'm not. — Tzeentch

I dont want to get all panto on you but Oh yes you are!

If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you. — Tzeentch

Right back at you, I can confirm to you that your antinatalism is no threat to me, but it is perhaps a threat to any here who are more mentally vulnerable than I.

I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.
All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.
You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.
You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks. — Tzeentch

Skeptical in what way? 'Ends do not justify means' is not an objective universal truth!
If I break the law and kill a killer who was planning to kill you and your loved ones.
If I killed that killer by breaking into their house and killing them before they carried out their plan to kill you then I would most likely be convicted and jailed for it. Well OK! That's the price I may have to pay under the law/rules of human morality. But perhaps many would feel that the Ends I achieved DID justify the means I employed. You and your family might indeed feel that way! Such is personally subjective, yes?

Well it wouldnt be true antinatalism then, if that's actually the case. If he doesn't care to reduce human suffering he doesn't behold an ultimate ethical principle for ending all suffering. — Benj96

I dont know if you have read through his recent posts on this page regarding his flavour of antinatalism.
It is based on a moral dilemma, not the issue of human suffering. I think his main posit is simply that it is immoral to bring a newborn into this existence without its consent and as its impossible to obtain its consent, the moral default position must be applied which MUST be, the decision not to procreate.
That's my attempt to 'steelman' his bizarre logic.

All we can merely offer is a change in the quality of the buzz - how someone gets their pleasure in life, a step away from something absurd/toxic/dangerous and towards something worthwhile, meaningful and wholesome. — Benj96

We can but try! :strong:

A job well done is just that - done.
You should feel proud of that fact, and move on. — Benj96

I do appreciate what you are saying and I broadly agree with your advice, BUT when you are dealing with those who post in an evanhellical style then they will not desist as long as they have a platform, and we cannot remove all their platforms because that would suggest we cannot deal with them in a civilised manner and still defeat them. If the antinatalist fountain keeps spouting, then I for one will keep trying to bail out our ship. Better that, than trying to save some if we all end up in the water as I can't swim and would be too busy drowning to help save anyone else.

I do appreciate what you are saying and I broadly agree with your advice, BUT when you are dealing with those who post in an evanhellical style then they will not desist as long as they have a platform, and we cannot remove all their platforms because that would suggest we cannot deal with them in a civilised manner and still defeat them. If the antinatalist fountain keeps spouting, then I for one will keep trying to bail out our ship. Better that, than trying to save some if we all end up in the water as I can't swim and would be too busy drowning to help save anyone else — universeness

Quite right Universeness, we must continue bailing that ship. Its a noble act of you to do so.

However we must recognise the point when one stops pumping the fountain and instead picks up a bailor and bails the ship with us. For then they're on our side. We can only do our best to convince the fountainists to become bailors. The rest is up to the fates.

I dont know if you have read through his recent posts on this page regarding his flavour of antinatalism.
It is based on a moral dilemma, not the issue of human suffering. I think his main posit is simply that it is immoral to bring a newborn into this existence without its consent and as its impossible to obtain its consent, the moral default position must be applied which MUST be, the decision not to procreate.
That's my attempt to 'steelman' his bizarre logic.
2h — universeness

Well one can only say that the default to not procreate as we cannot ask the unborn if they'd like to be born is merely based on the belief that we don't think we can raise that potential child to be good and to fight suffering. If we can raise such a child then we ought to (morally speaking).

If we are sure we would create a monster instead then we ought not to (again morally speaking). It speaks to a direct reflection on one's own capacity to be good and thus train their children/teach them to do the same.

But as we cannot know for certain how our children will turn out we do take a chance by procreating. But we do know ourselves - as parents - we may be sure that we have the best intentions to do right by our children. That is usually enough to convince them (their agency) to be good because our children usually respect us as parents, as the ones that brought them into the world.

For then they're on our side. We can only do our best to convince the fountainists to become bailors. The rest is up to the fates. — Benj96

You can concentrate on that, and I will try to help stop any bailers switch to maintaining the spouting fountain. I think you have the tougher task!

But as we cannot know for certain how our children will turn out we do take a chance by procreating. But we do know ourselves - as parents - we may be sure that we have the best intentions to do right by our children. That is usually enough to convince them (their agency) to be good because our children usually respect us as parents, as the ones that brought them into the world. — Benj96

Yes, you summarise the moral issue quite well. But my argument regarding the moral dilemma peddled by @Tzeentch is that his issue of 'common morality' is extensively overblown by him and it does not have the force behind it that he is trying to peddle. Human morality is not as significant as the natural imperative to procreate, as a defence against extinction. The natural development of asexuality in many flora and fauna species is evidence for this, as is the fact that natural selection will maintain those aspects of a species which best equips it for survival within the environment it finds itself in, regardless of any issue of what humans label, morality. In fact, evolution through natural selection will even alter species over evolutionary time to assist a species to survive in its environment, regardless of any issue related to the human concept of morality. I think these biological facts, push the comparative human morality issue peddled by Tzeentch, towards a gnat sized concern. I think it does the same to schopenhauer1's human suffering flavour. The theistic antinatalism flavours and propositional logic conflations used by Bartricks are just too ridiculous to need much effort to combat. He can only get the fountain to slightly drip onto the deck of the ship.
One bailer could put his pail down for most of his/her life before having to take a moment to bail bartricks out of our progressive human ship.

as is the fact that natural selection will maintain those aspects of a species which best equips it for survival within the environment it finds itself in, regardless of any issue of what humans label, morality — universeness

Could natural selection not also operate on a cultural, linguistic and neurological level? I fail to see how the process is limited to biology and cannot be extended to other things like concepts, the words that represent them and the cultures that use them.

For example if a concept is useful (logical and or ethical) in explanation of something it will be used by an individual to articulate themselves (articulation being the spreading of that concept to others).

Similarly such new concepts require new words right? To condense their meaning into something useful - a short hand explanation for quicker/more efficient spreading of the information.

For example: Instead of saying "we should like totally be friends with that four legged animal that seems pretty nice and does stuff for us in return for food" we can just call it a "dog" and refer to it as "man's best friend". The information is the same, the number of words is condensed.

Languages evolve out of usefulness. Slang and tech words are the new most useful terms accepted to describe ideas and that's why they gain popularity.

I can now "Google it". It's now a verb in the dictionary. Instead of before where I had to say "I can now search for the information using the digital world wide network". A mouthful for sure.

There is clear space between natural selection (no intent) and human selection (intent).
Human selection is directly responsible for the evolutionary direction of almost every dog/cat/domesticated animal species alive today. This is also true for many flora/plant species.
I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection.

I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection. — universeness

In that sense you outlined, yes I'm referring to human selection. However humans are natural - born of nature itself. At what point does natural selection convert into human selection? And how arbitrary or definitive is this boundary?

I suppose based on your distinction of "intent" and "no intent" you're referring to "choice" which pertains to agents/that which is conscious.
So the difference then between natural selection and human selection would be the emergence of conscious agents with intent right?

Does that mean then that humans are the only conscious agents with intent? Or is it perhaps a continuum graduating stepwise from a system with no agency or choice towards one that does have agency and control. And where would other animals, plants and life fall on this continuum of emergent "intent"?

In that sense yes in referring to human selection. However humans are natural - born of nature itself. At what point does natural selection convert into human selection? — Benj96

Natural selection still affects humans, humans continue to evolve related to their environment, but human science will have a far more significant effect and far faster effect on human physiology/biology than evolution through natural selection. So human intent via human science creates human selection but it does not replace evolution and natural selection, that will continue until universal entropy, returns the Universe to nothing but energy.

I suppose based on your distinction of "intent" and "no intent" you're referring to "choice" which pertains to agents/that which is conscious. So the difference then between natural selection and human selection would be the emergence of conscious agents with intent right? — Benj96

Yes, but I think it's more important here, to use a concept of intent, akin to 'the imposition of an individual or group human will.'

Does that mean then that humans are the only conscious agents with intent? Or is it perhaps a continuum graduating stepwise from a system with no agency or choice towards one that does have agency and control. And where would other animals, plants and life fall on this continuum of emergent "intent"? — Benj96

No, I think many animals demonstrate intent. Even instinct can have an aspect of intent imo.
We don't know if extra-terrestrial intelligent life exists, if it does, then we are not even the only conscious agents with intent at our level of intellect. So, absolutely yes, there is a gradation or range of ability to demonstrate and impose intent, within all living entities.

Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering? — universeness

It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years.

I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nhs-cuts-excess-deaths-30000-study-research-royal-society-medicine-london-school-hygiene-martin-mckee-jeremy-hunt-a7585001.html

It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree.

I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Martin Luther King got involved in politics, to reduce or stop minority groups living lives of unbearable suffering, due to racism and a lack of human/civil rights.
Gandhi got involved in politics to free the people in his subjugated nation from the unbearable suffering being imposed apon them, due to British imperialism.
I could cite many more examples.

Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I broadly agree, but the people you describe above are the ones I continue to combat, by trying to convince their supporters, through reasoned debate/dialogue/discourse, to stop supporting such nefarious, narcissistic and in some examples, evil people who peddle evil policies and evil ideas, which in political examples, have the hidden agenda of gaining new or maintaining the current wealth and power of the nefarious few.

@schopenhauer1, do you really think it's the pain/the anguish/the suffering/the agony (dukkha) that's our enemy #1?

do you think it's really the pain/the anguish/the suffering/the agony (dukkha) that's our enemy #1? — Agent Smith

I think yes, there is an inherent kind suffering (like dukkha) that is very much the heart of the whole enterprise of life. There is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates. The goal (trick) of societies is to try to harness this motivation for "productive" purposes. I simply see it as not "being" and succumbing to becoming. We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment.

I feel you're right on the money.

In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context? — Isaac

That is a good question. How can we judge an argument, when there can be no correct answer.

For one, I would say ability to convince. I don't know how far you would agree on this point, but in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. However, if presented with the question within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a fair number of people would opt to walk away. It feels wrong to them that people's happiness is contingent on others suffering. In the context I was using fair, unfair wouldn't make a lot of sense as an antonym, but would mean not fairly convincing.

Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.

Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it. — Isaac

Yes, that's a third option. A factual case that procreation is a better way to cut down on suffering than antinatalism. This is different to the other two in that there is a right and wrong answer to it.

Down the lagomorphian hole it is! Isn't there a 1% rule?

Don't want to get @schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed.

Don't want to get schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Quite the opposite for me - I know the topic's widely discussed (at least on this forum) but I didn't know so much work had been done on it!

... in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree with this point, and I was hoping that by pointing out some of the moral dilemmas associated with procreation I could coax some of this philosophy out of the its defenders, but I've gotten little in the way of that.

here is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates. — schopenhauer1

A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise?

We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment. — schopenhauer1

There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society.

What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst.

That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement.

It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from.

A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise? — Benj96

Nah man, it doesn't go away. That is the point of the perennialism of Schopenhauer. it's a reason he was very opposed to Hegel's upward spiral notion.

There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society. — Benj96

It starts with two people who decide on behalf of someone else, that a new person needs to deal with the world and deal with survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment. They are creating another source of angst, in other words. The social institutions are like a pyramid scheme.. It can't be gotten rid of or changed easily as it's all the society has to allow the forced contestants to survive, find comfort, and entertainment.

What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst. — Benj96

People used to call some of that sublimation. But basically I consider entertainment anything that isn't survival or comfort seeking. Meditation and reading philosophy for pleasure can be entertainment. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's something you are doing outside of working to survive or finding ways to get more comfortable with your environment.

That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement. — Benj96

But YOUR preference for X institutions shouldn't become someone else's burden to bear, simply because YOU think this is the case.

It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from. — Benj96

We are far from a utopia. Rather, we are a mediocre universe doing mediocre things. The main problem is we keep putting more contestants in the game, and thinking we are doing them a favor. It's just starting yet another game on behalf of someone else, because YOU like something. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed. Where MY preference for what choices are meaningful or good (e.g. working to survive apparently people must love because they keep putting more laboring units into the workforce and shoving the drivel that work is meaningful so don't despair) are what OTHER people should experience.. Somehow the limited choices that life offers of survival and comfort, somehow the intendant harms of existing are what OTHERS should experience. OR, guess what they can do if they don't like it? You know (kill themselves!)...Real gaslighting if you ask me.

But YOUR preference for X institutions shouldn't become someone else's burden to bear, simply because YOU think this is the case. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. It's their choice, not mine.

. It's just starting yet another game on behalf of someone else, because YOU like something — schopenhauer1

Absolutely. I agree.

. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed. — schopenhauer1

This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, and we must suffer/be of inherent angst thus. I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one.

Otherwise why bother with politics or accruing any power whatsoever - If that power cannot change circumstances in any meaningful way?

It's equivalent to outlining a game where the rigid/fixed rules are "the climate will change to such a point where earth will be uninhabitable and you will all die".

Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "No" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it?

Except that is not the game we play in real life. The rules are changeable en masse. Science tells us "here is the path away from these rules and towards a new set of more optimistic ones where the game-play can continue".

Any sensible game player would opt for that path.

So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissable in the game.

Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players.

This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, a — Benj96

I CANNOT in good conscience FORCE you to start a game because I think there is some chance you can change the rules (which is extremely hard), and this doesn't address the point that the rules are already in place, and they are simply ACCEPTED (or kill yourself.. a shitty bargain).

I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one — Benj96

Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what @Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing.

Otherwise why bother with politics or accruing any power whatsoever - If that power cannot change circumstances in any meaningful? — Benj96

Politics is not what I am talking about. It is the very foundational needs and wants of the angst-human being.

Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "Np" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it? — Benj96

I'm not talking about climate change or things such as that, though it is an example of a greater understanding that there are only a LIMITED amount of choices this universe allows for the human. The parent thinks that these choices are "good" and thus must be lived out by yet another person as well. That's what I am speaking to.

So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissible in the game.

Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players. — Benj96

Yeah, I am not talking about the onward march of scientific phenomena.

Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing. — schopenhauer1

What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then?

What harm was done when they turn around and say "so I know you forced me into this game without my consent but I'm actually really glad you did as I didn't realise how much I would enjoy it, so thank you for taking that initial decision for me."

What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? — Benj96

The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life.

If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it.

The problem with this argument in my opinion, is that the parents do not have any knowledge of what they're about to impose. The life of a new person is a complete unknown. Nor do they have much influence over the outcome - that is determined by many other factors than the parents' goodwill and expertise.

The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life. — Tzeentch

No it doesn't. I just outlined the conditions. Person A forced person B into existence and they happened to love it and be grateful to person A for forcing them to participate.

With respect to those exact conditions what would you say?

Instead of re-writing it to a position in time when person A hasn't yet forced B to participate as I clearly did not outline. Its not a speculation or gamble when it has already happened.

So ill repeat myself, in the case that we assume person A has already committed person B to existing. And person B LOVES IT. And is happy, and grateful for being born. (as is the case currently with many parent child dynamics)

In that case... What argument do you have exactly?

With respect to those exact conditions what would you say? — Benj96

Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.

A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice.