If someone is born, there is already an assumption that they ought to be born for some reason. — schopenhauer1

Well you know I don't agree.

By the way, ever read William James's "Is Life Worth Living?" Worth a look.

That birth is a political decision because involves making decisions for other people?

Because if impositions (which cause harm) matter, then so do actions that bestow beneficial positives upon someone (which cannot be asked for before existing). Some decisions that were made for us when we were unable to make them ourselves can be good (and this would apply if the concept of consent can be relevant despite the fact that no existing interests of a person are ignored when they are created). A limitless focus on the negative does not seem like a good idea to me.

I would consider it, but my primary focus would be on removing the cause of suffering before it can affect someone. If that can't be done and the harms would outweigh the good, one would still have to ask if a world with greater suffering (and comparatively less good) would be better. Once again, I don't think that a state that does not cause any meaningful benefit/loss to someone can be good or bad, but I am willing to accept this could be true for the sake of the discussion. If it would be good to not create someone who could suffer, then it would also be bad to not do so despite knowing that they could experience happiness.

"Non-existent, verily, this (world) was in the beginning. From that verily was born existence. It made itself as the Self (of the existence). Therefore it is called a virtuous act. Verily, that which is well made is the delight of existence; for truly on obtaining the delight of existence one becomes blissful."

—Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.7.1.

:pray:

A relevant educational opportunity - Dr John Vervaeke on Beyond Nihilism, with lectures, readings and online participation. (I'd consider signing up myself but the sessions are all at midnight in my timezone, and while I'm keen, I'm not *that* keen.)

Thank you for sharing this. I am sure it will be a wellspring of intellectually-stimulating ideas for many.

The OP frequently writes on what is known as ‘antinatalism’ which is apparently a philosophy that stresses it would be better not to have been born or not to exist. Like many traditional philosophies, it sees existence as being inherently imperfect and painful. Gnosticism is another example. It sees the world as the creation of an evil demiurge, usually identified with the OT Jehovah, and the only hope being an escape from the created world and return to the Plelroma through gnostic insight.

Yet unlike the ancient world-denying philosophies modern antinatalism seems to have no conception of there being anything corresponding to the ‘release from suffering’. Existence is a mirage, a trap, a painful charade, but there’s nothing higher to aspire to. Only the wan idea that maybe if we don’t procreate, then we’ve made a meaningful gesture towards non-being. — Wayfarer

My question to you is why do the majority keep on (making the mistake of) trying to make a meaningful gesture towards being? I noticed you never answered me directly but wrote generally, or to DA.

I have maintained that there is a political implication to this- that people ought to be making gestures towards being, the great IS. But why? Anything less than a paradise done on other's behalf should be justified. You cannot deny it is putting people through not only good but trials of varying degrees and kinds. That in itself means societally, and individually, it is deemed as some sort of goal to direct others towards. But, as Cioran points out, the decision, once made, is not reversible, even by suicide. So why make this choice for someone else? Thomas Ligotti called the concept, "The Cult of the Grinning Martyrs". But why more martyrs?

So why make this choice for someone else? — schopenhauer1

Obviously, because they can't make it for themselves before hand.

Precisely my point. It’s someone else deciding. It’s political.