Thank you for your illuminating thoughts. I would say that while the struggle is undeniable, the good can only be frustrated to a certain point before it breaks free. This was true when we ended widespread slavery, smallpox, ubiquitous illiteracy, etc. In spite of everything, I remain optimistic that we will see progress.

Thank you for this riveting recommendation!

"I have found that life persists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a higher law than that of destruction. Only under that law would a well-ordered society be intelligible and life worth living. And if that is the law of life, we have to work it out in daily life. Wherever there are jars, wherever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love. In this crude manner, I have worked it out in my life. That does not mean that all my difficulties are solved. Only, I have found that this law of love has answered as the law of destruction has never done."

—Mahatma Gandhi, YI, 1-10-1931, p.286

Thank you. :pray:

I, too, hope that we will see such people again. However, until we do, it is imperative that each person puts in their best effort. The house is built by discrete bricks.

Anything could happen! — Vera Mont

Sadly, in India, this meant that anything that was terrible could happen. What became two in 1947 was, before the 1940s and even after the elections in the 30s, thought to be one by the majority. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in the beginning of 1948 was another humungous blow. Brothers became enemies and war broke out over Kashmir. We were fortunate that we had an able leadership back then (led by Pandit Nehru) that was able to eventually defeat the communal forces and bring nation on the path of development.

Edit: Usually, the positives we saw in that period were linked with the Mahatma in one way or another:

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/gandhi-the-one-man-army-behind-the-great-calcutta-miracle-2646644

Well, we do not know what happened. However, I would say that someone who has begun to feel that they are going to end up in hell (I personally do not believe in an eternal hell) is unlikely to live a fulfilling life for years. Despondency, grief, and guilt gradually take over all aspects of one's being and there isn't much one can do. But by going back to the source of the problem, I believe that Mahatma Gandhi gave the man not only the chance to make the right choice, but to also give two individuals the opportunity of love that had all but evaporated in most people's lives. As I told you earlier, the future of a Muslim orphan in 1947 India was perhaps bleaker than the future of any other person. Diseases, no parents, and communal hatred increasing everywhere. From what I have read and been told about that period by some of the older people here, reaching New Delhi was a tall order for most. New York would have been almost unimaginable. And if the man had chosen to end his life due to the unbearable weight he felt, what remained of his family and relatives would have probably been condemned to death as well because of the misery they would have felt from losing two people close to their hearts as well as a pillar of strength in a deeply patriarchal society (with extremely limited economic opportunities).

Thank you the mention. I have expressed my thoughts in my previous replies. I think that if a man has come to a point when they think that they are going to hell (I do not believe in an eternal hell), it is apparent that they have been overcome with grief, despondency, and guilt. The only cure to this darkness may be going back to where it all began and making the right choices.

The India we are talking about had a life expectancy of less than 40 years, and the specific period in which this man came to Mahatma Gandhi was when the partition was happening. At this point, passangers travelling in trains were being slaughtered and life was about as valuable as a speck of dust. I believe that the situation of an orphan (especially for a Muslim orphan in a nation that barely had any decent orphanages) would not have been particularly good and risks would have been everywhere. At least by giving him the chance of being adopted, Mahatma Gandhi allowed for the existence of the possibility of not one, but two lives seeing a new day.

Humiliation does not cure hatred. — Vera Mont

I think that Mahatma Gandhi's primary aim was to generate understanding. Both communities then, and even now, often misunderstood the other and believed as if the other side was filled with evil people who were hell-bent on destroying them. Breaking this perspective was a major step towards national unity. To a great extent, he managed to succeed in his aim. Even during the height of the Pakistan movement (and the communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha), leaders such as Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan stood by Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of a united India.

You're pointing to a weak foundation that prudence would dictate protecting so that the entire structure won't fall. The problem is that the foundation is weak because there are those who see no advantage in supporting it because it doesn't promote their interests. — Hanover

That is certainly the perception many have, which is what fuels the popularity of the government. At the same time, I do feel that it is possible to manipulate someone into either believing that they have an interest that they previously didn't, or to give them a "solution" that is going to cause a larger problem sooner or later. As you rightly said, challenges are inevitable. Still, I do hope that they can be met while they are manageable.

Thank you for the comment.

In our case, this isn't as much about changing the name as it is about removing one of the names (one that has been used to identify the country for centuries, including by those who fought for our freedom). Revolutions can lead to peace and progress, but they can also turn the ship towards the opposite direction. Of course, the flag alone is not enough, but in a society that is heavily influenced by symbols, it cannot be left alone either. For if it falls, it's possible that it will have enough force to form a crack into the already weak wall in front of the pole. It is true, however, that this is but the first step.

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that there there are very few things in the world (which includes philosophy) that are "just" what they are without having any connection with something else. The giant house can be built by curiously diminutive bricks.

It's the extreme violence towards people who are not in your tribe/faith which is so shocking! — universeness

I think that the core problems are extremism and dogmatism. I remember talking with a few communists who told me about the feeling of violence that used to rise within them whenever they met a well-off person. I was especially surprised by the fact that many of these rich people had actually gone to great lengths to help these people, but the hostility remained as the distinction between "us" and the "other" was so rigid.

Edit: Also, I find it humourous that plenty of young Indians curse the socialism of Pandit Nehru and others while Swami Vivekananda, who was possibly the most influential Hindu thinker to have existed in the last two centuries (alongside Mahatma Gandhi) and who is repeatedly considered a hero by the far side of the right wing, was actually in favour of socialism.

"I am a socialist not because I think it is a perfect system, but half a loaf is better than no bread."

—https://vivekavani.com/cxii-mary-letters-swami-vivekananda/

Then again, this isn't shocking in view of the fact that they can manage to downplay the significance of the following words:

"For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam — Vedanta brain and Islam body — is the only hope."

—https://www.swamivivekananda.guru/2017/02/19/vedanta-brain-and-islam-body-only-hope-for-our-motherland/

Thank you for reading the article. It does paint a rather grim picture. I believe that this portion was also very revealing:

"More than a decade ago, when Narendra Modi was a nobody, a small-time RSS pracharak trying to make it as a small-time BJP functionary, I had the privilege of interviewing him along with Achyut Yagnik, whom Modi could not fortunately recognise. (Fortunately because he knew Yagnik by name and was to later make some snide comments about his activities and columns.) It was a long, rambling interview, but it left me in no doubt that here was a classic, clinical case of a fascist. I never use the term ‘fascist’ as a term of abuse; to me it is a diagnostic category comprising not only one’s ideological posture but also the personality traits and motivational patterns contextualising the ideology.

Modi, it gives me no pleasure to tell the readers, met virtually all the criteria that psychiatrists, psycho-analysts and psychologists had set up after years of empirical work on the authoritarian personality. He had the same mix of puritanical rigidity, narrowing of emotional life, massive use of the ego defence of projection, denial and fear of his own passions combined with fantasies of violence – all set within the matrix of clear paranoid and obsessive personality traits. I still remember the cool, measured tone in which he elaborated a theory of cosmic conspiracy against India that painted every Muslim as a suspected traitor and a potential terrorist. I came out of the interview shaken and told Yagnik that, for the first time, I had met a textbook case of a fascist and a prospective killer, perhaps even a future mass murderer."

When things get as bad as described below, (Warning: only read the extract below from the article, if you want to read about another example of how savage the 'them' and 'us' mentality can manifest) can philosophers or democratic socialists or atheists or scientists, find a permanent solution to such human atrocity, committed on other humans? No god seems able to. So we only have the revulsion felt by all decent humanity, as our motivation to prevent the horrors described in the article and specifically in the extract below. — universeness

Mahatma Gandhi, as a Hindu, was able to use his religion to not only elevate himself (by taking the Hindu Vedāntic view of seeing the ultimate reality everywhere to its logical conclusion and by defending the idea of Ahimsa), but also others. It was because of this that the rioters in Bengal stopped not by guns, but by his presence.

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/gandhi-the-one-man-army-behind-the-great-calcutta-miracle-2646644

His panpsychist and panentheistic idea of God was also tied with karma. As you read in that article, the Gandhians (and Nehruvians) have been in a state of decline for a long time. While the Congress party's rule remained, they felt little need to make the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru relevant (or, to be more accurate, present them in a more relevant manner) to the new generations. I remember the way we used to study about Mahatma Gandhi in our school. Instead of attempting to grasp the man in a holistic way, all we were given were facts that were to be remembered for an exam. Inadequate understanding of the founders of any nation is dangerous, and it isn't surprising that we now see a plethora of people believing misinformation about Mahatma Gandhi. Pandit Nehru was able to steer the nation towards progress despite his desire to not let the state be associated with religion. None of this would have happened without meaningful actions. The time for change (at all levels) is now. Taking democracy for granted is not an amazing idea.

:up:

It never had the support of the majority of the Sikh population. It did rise in popularity during the 80s amongst certain Sikhs when some extremists rose in popularity (which was the height of the violence you referred to). Nowadays, the movement is primarily restricted to some individuals in the West. India has even had a Sikh Prime Minister (Dr Manmohan Singh). However, if we keep going down the path of "us" vs "them", we could reach a precarious situation. This is what people like Mahatma Gandhi understood.

As that article I shared with you is a fairly old one, please do let me know if you have any trouble accessing it.

https://www.india-seminar.com/2002/513/513%20ashis%20nandy.htm

This is an old but quite rich analysis of the person leading India right now. This was written by Ashis Nandy who is a prominent Indian political psychologist and social theorist.

Or it could give more ammunition to "decoloniality" crowd that is keen to distance India from the West and the so-called Western values in the name of saving the nation/civilisation. It's strange to me that we have reached a point where seemingly intelligent people are questioning one of the names of our country—the same name that had inspired our freedom fighters and that has reflected our nation's international identity for centuries. People come and go, but the influence of ideas (both constructive and destructive) persists. What we needed was a sincere reflection of the past that would have enabled us to weed out the negative aspects of the foreign influence while integrating that which was good. Whatever is happening, I believe that isn't wholly reasonable.

I did. I hope that we will get to the bottom of this. If true, I suppose that we can congratulate our government for making India the new Russia or China. If false, this would go down as needless controversy that battered the relationship between India and Canada.

:ok: :clap:

:100: :up:

Your reply reminded me of an old Hindi song. Here is the link to it: https://youtu.be/NufQfRt0uCQ?si=LInmOpDSe0VXy0Jh

Sadly, there aren't any subtitles, but this English translation may be somewhat helpful:

maut kabhee bhee mil saktee hai,
DEATH CAN BE MET AT ANY TIME,

lekin jeevan kal naa milegaa,
BUT LIFE WON’T BE FOUND NEXT TIME,

marne waale soch samajh le
O YOU WHO IS ABOUT TO DIE! THINK OVER,

phir tujh ko yeh, pal naa milegaa..
THEREAFTER, YOU WON’T FIND THIS MOMENT EVER!

raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa,
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT,

kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!

raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa,
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT,

kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!

raat bhar ka hai mehmaan.n andheraa...
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT!

raat jitnee bhee sangeen hogee,
AS MUCH AS THE NIGHT IS MORBID,

subha utnee hee rangeen hogee,
THAT MUCH WILL THE MORNING BE SPLENDID!

raat jitnee bhee sangeen hogee,
AS MUCH AS THE NIGHT IS MORBID,

subha utnee hee rangeen hogee,
THAT MUCH WILL THE MORNING BE SPLENDID!

gham naa kar gar hai baadal ghaneraa,
IF THE CLOUD IS CONSIDERABLE, DON’T BE GRIEVED,

kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!

raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa...
DARKNESSS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT!

lab pe shikwaa naa laa ashq pee le,
DON’T BRING COMPLAINT TO THE LIPS, DRINK UP THE TEAR!

jis tareh bhee ho kuchh der jee le,
WHICHEVER WAY, FOR SOME TIME MORE, WITH THE LIFE ADHERE,

lab pe shikwaa naa laa ashq pee le,
DON’T BRING COMPLAINT TO THE LIPS, DRINK UP THE TEAR!

jis tareh bhee ho kuchh der jee le,
WHICHEVER WAY, FOR SOME TIME MORE, WITH THE LIFE ADHERE,

ab ukha.Dne ko hai gham ka Deraa,
SORROW’S CAMP IS ABOUT TO SEVER

kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!

raat bhar ka hai mehmaan.n andheraa...
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT!

aa koee mil ke tadbeer soche.n,
COME, TOGETHER LET’S SOME TACTIC DEFINE,

sukh ke sapno.n kee taabeer soche.n
THE OUTCOME OF THE PLEASANT DREAMS, LET’S DIVINE,

aa koee mil ke tadbeer soche.n,
COME, TOGETHER LET’S SOME TACTIC DEFINE,

sukh ke sapno.n kee taabeer soche.n
THE OUTCOME OF THE PLEASANT DREAMS, LET’S DIVINE,

jo teraa hai vohee gham hai meraa,
THE SORROW YOU’VE IS THE SAME AS MINE,

kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!

raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa,
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT,

kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!

Source: https://nasir-eclectic.blogspot.com/2010/05/588-rafis-philosophical-song-raat-bhar.html?m=1

It's also amusing that many of these people absolutely despise Mahatma Gandhi (the person who probably did the most to keep the country united while bringing it to freedom) and actually praise his assassin. So much for loving "Mother India". Nevertheless, hope for the truth's victory will always remain. Satyameva Jayate (truth alone triumphs) is India's national motto. Thank you for watching the documentary.

If there is a divisive ideology behind any action, then it is bound to negatively affect the prospects of unity.

Many people belonging to the right-wing deny the well-established theory of the Aryan migration and instead argue that the Aryans originated in India. This would allow them to claim that Hinduism was developed by an indigenous population (you can see why this would be important for those who have a major issue with some "foreigners").

Any individual or group who desires the society to be embroiled in such debates usually has one agenda: gaining power by vilifying a particular section of the society and acting as if one is saving the nation/community from a purportedly terrible fate.

Thank you for sharing that informative video. If you find some free time, I would once again suggest that you watch that documentary.

No news is good news. — ssu

:up: That says something about the news as well.

Unfortunately I feel there's still a long road on this same path before that better tomorrow. — ssu

A possibility nobody can rationally deny. Nonetheless, I do feel that it will not be long enough to tire out the truth completely.

This is just one more example of how a highly vocal minority can generate a big issue out of narrow personal interests. — BC

Quite true. This is precisely what is happening in many other places. If your campaign to change/remove a name is a part of a long-term plan to alter the nature of the nation itself, then questions are inevitable.

It can, but it does require concerted efforts. You're quite right about the unavoidable nature of those afflictions. May we see a better tomorrow.

This seems like it describe the whole world right now. I feel like we're in Europe in 1914 just waiting for the pistol shot. — T Clark

:up:

If you have the time, I would suggest that you have a look at this:

https://youtu.be/7DmhF_W-nrI?si=C-_ZmU-bcSurx-Rq

It is mainly about the state of our media, but what it reflects could hint at what is happening at the fundamental level of the society's consciousness.

Why not have a referendum on the issue? Do those who would have the right to vote in such, know enough about it? Would the current Indian authorities, allow the people to be fully informed of both sides of the debate, and allow enough time for people to discuss the issues involved, and make an informed choice? Referenda can be a fantastic democratic tool, but only if the voters involved cannot be easily fooled or manipulated. If that is not the case, then referenda can do more damage than good. — universeness

I would recommend that you watch this documentary:

https://youtu.be/7DmhF_W-nrI?si=C-_ZmU-bcSurx-Rq

The state of the media, and consequently of information, is not particularly good.

incredibly parochial — T Clark

The threat is beginning to mushroom. Corrective measures would have to be taken before irreparable harm is done.

Even if the opposition chose the name (and the hyper-nationalism of the ruling government that tends to portray opponents as anti-nationals may have played a role in this decision), one would have expected a mature response from people who claim to cherish the nation's rich heritage. Instead, we had to weal with words like these:

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/country-should-be-named-bharat-britishers-used-word-india-as-abuse-says-bjp-mp-harnath-singh-yadav-2023-09-05-890839

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/rajnath-singh-says-india-a-dangerous-word-slams-opposition-bloc-8924753/

The worst part is that Bharat, as one of our official names, already exists. What is being proposed is an end of a word that has been intertwined with our identity for a long time.

There it is in a nutshell: if the opposition wouldn't have came up with this smug way to portray them as INDIA, would this discussion take place. It's all and everything about this. It's just to make less petty and give it more meaning to the discussion. — ssu

Actually, the debate had already begun at one level. This step of the opposition only sped things up.

I, like BC, have no personal or political stake in this matter.

There are a few Indian people in my town, most young - in their 30s. When I asked them their thoughts about the renaming of Mumbai, they laughed and told me the people they know still call it "Bombay." Is there a generational or ethnic split between those who want to change the name and those who don't. Do some regions or ethnic groups feel more at home in India than others? — T Clark

The split, if it exists, is primarily between those who look at a large chunk of their past with suspicion and those who probably have no real issue with it or at least feel that the good outweighs the bad. The unfortunate part is that there was no real movement from the masses for a change. Much of this is being led by some individuals. Misinformation has also become a powerful problem in India. The following article provides a good analysis of the issue:

https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/09/08/india-vs-bharat-a-synonym-binary-choice-or-ideological-fixation

I understand that this might not appear to be relevant to many people, but as the world's largest nation, the path India takes will have an impact on a noteworthy percentage of humanity. Hopefully, it will not lead to unnecessary fragmentation.

So, I don't have a stake -- zero investment -- in what India or Bharat calls itself. But we will all have difficulty finding names for ourselves that are entirely founded on whichever native land we are from. "America" derives from the name of an Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, who otherwise had very little to do with the matter.

"Asia" is a name derived from Greek, or maybe Assyrian, meaning "east of".

My point is that language and maps and usage are this huge accumulation of past events and persons that were mostly not rationally organized. They just happened.

Yes, we could spend the rest of our civilization's life straightening all this out. If we do, our civilization's life will be shorter because there are all these other -- far more urgent -- things that we should have attended to and didn't. — BC

True. There is practically no end to this project. And even if there could be, I am unsure if it is desirable considering the continually evolving nature of "us" and "them".

As time moves on and we learn more, we often change how we refer to people and places. We used to refer to people and nations in stereotypical ways that most of us choose not to use anymore. I am sure you would not accept, all us Scots, being called mean and tight with money for example.

India has already changed many of its City names from the names imposed by imperialist Britain.
In Russia, Stalingrad and Leningrad are gone. Many countries changed their name after becoming independent by casing off their imperialist conquerors. Is India trying to do something similar here? or is this just Modi's attempt to get a little closer to his real wish, which I think it to re-name the place Hindustan.

Do you think my suspicion of Mr Modi's real agenda here is far fetched Existential Hope? — universeness

You may find these articles on the topic to be of some use:

https://thewire.in/history/bharat-india-hindustan-history

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/in-debate-between-india-bharat-hindustan-missing-8926730/

Those who are asking to drop India may not be comfortable with Hindustan as it has Persian links and is widely used by Muslims. Previous governments also changed colonial names, but those names were not as old as India and neither did they occupy as important of a place in Indian history as India does. Again, the key thing to remember is that people are not demanding that the name should be changed; they are asking for one of the names to be removed. When you see this together with the attempts to distance secularism from the nation (due to its "foreign" roots), the picture that emerges is a murky one. Then, there is also this: https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/theres-a-case-for-we-the-people-to-embrace-a-new-constitution-11692021963182.html

It is true that the word "India" has an external origin. However, the issue is that this mentality of throwing away anything that has a source outside the land has no real end. For example, the word "Hindu" was also coined by those who were not native to the land. India may not have a direct translation to Hindi, but our founders already included Bharat in the constitution. For decades, we have followed the policy of using India in English and Bharat in indigenous languages. India was the word used by almost all of our freedom fighters. Soldiers have died for this name and numerous talented sportspeople have been inspired by the chants of this name. ISRO, which brought India to the Moon, is known as the Indian Space Research Organisation. Is there no point at which the so-called "other" becomes one of our own?

Furthermore, I think that there is a darker element to this. In recent years, some figures belonging to the far side of the right wing (who also favour using only Bharat, ironically enough in English, and dropping India) have begun to advocate the view that ideas such as secularism are colonial concepts that cannot be applied to Indic religions. These people have no love lost for Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru (who were also affected by the allegedly colonial mentality according to these individuals). They tend to downplay caste-based discrimination and also question the widely-accepted Aryan migration theory (preferring to argue that they were natives). Therefore, a shift towards removing India could become a triumph for some pernicious sections of the society.

Having a family and being able to contribute to the survival of humanity (and all that is good) can indubitably be a source of hope and happiness for many. However, as an optimist, I don't think that blindly romanticising procreation is a wise idea. Life has a beauty that possesses a strikingly diverse nature. It is possible the slope to be an enchanting mountain, even if that recognition depends upon one's current position and taking a few steps back.

So existential is considering both the positive and negative as the moral points, while shopenhauer1 is only considering the negative as the moral obligation points to consider. Does that sound about right?

It might just be a conceptualization difference. "Positive" and "Negative" are really relative terms. schopenhauer, couldn't the view point that you're noting is really about making life less negative overall? Which doesn't that translate into the relative idea that you're making life more positive overall? Someone being happy is a less negative experience then not feeling anything at all right? The point is I don't think its possible to compare negative without positive, as negative needs what is positive as a relative comparison. Vice versa naturally.

As for doing this comparison ourselves about having kids, that's extremely difficult. Should Steven Hawking never have been born if science had predicted he would have ALS in the womb and that's all we knew? Deciding to have or not have a kid based on known negatives of the kids life in the future runs parallel to abortion, and that debate is not likely to be settled anytime soon. That's why I think its more important that the person willing to have a child goes in with trying their best, while those who aren't interested should pass on having a kid. — Philosophim

I think that this is probably accurate. I don't think Schopenhauer1 does not see any value in the positives, but it is obvious that they are supererogatory for him. For me, they matter just as much as the negatives do.

To me, actions that make life better or worse are the ones that have moral relevance. However, I am willing to grant that states of affairs that are devoid of a person can still be good or bad in an impersonal sense. What I take issue with is arguing that only the absence of suffering possesses the unique capacity for impersonal value. Although I don't believe that positive experiences must be preceded by negative ones, I do agree that the presence of negative experiences can lead to a greater appreciation for the good.

I respect your nuanced position on this knotty subject.

It would be foolish of me to presume that I can put forth an unbiased viewpoint, but I think that the central issue is having a partial understanding ethics. I find it troublesome when people act as if life is a bubble of unadulterated joy that should never be questioned. Entitled parents act in this manner and this is verily reprehensible. Yet, I also fail to see much substantial value in making everything about risks, harms, and impositions. Opportunities, benefits, and benedictions are also of interest.

Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have). — schopenhauer1

Which is a mirage. Negative interference and positive intervention both have a role to play. The only thing is that an existing person can live a decent life without the latter, whereas there is no life at all before birth.

But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone. — schopenhauer1

I am thankful to you for your magnanimous attitude. However, I cannot but continue to disagree. If, hypothetically, we lived in a hellish landscape devoid of all love and beauty without any hope, your view would have had immense worth. But as we are not discussing boundless harms, ignoring the good cannot be ethically justifiable. Your next statement about that possible utopia further reflects your deep-rooted pessimistic bias by forgetting about the fact that procreation can also have unimaginable value for those who exist. Finally, not starting anything benefits nobody either.

Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation. — schopenhauer1

Receiving a pointless burden that stands in the way of a free and happy life is quite different from being given the very ability to experience the positives (and not by dragging inexistent souls from a superior state of existence). Evasion resides on many territories.

Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey. — schopenhauer1

Your usage of the word "force" despite the absence of any evidence that demonstrates the desire of non-existent beings to avoid existence is indicative of your excessive faith in the negative. Only dictatorial dispensations would seek to eradicate all potential good due to their failure to observe value in it. It's myopic to think, "Well, I can see that you sincerely love your life, but since you were not there to ask for it, they ultimately mean nothing and, if given the chance, I would have prevented your existence." Is it "cringey"? I cannot answer that. Nevertheless, I believe that it is unfortunate. It's also not as frivolous as getting the machines out. It is undeniably tragic that people have to go through terrible afflictions. Our efforts to address this have to be incessant and multifaceted (without annihilating the good). If no other option remains, being able to find a graceful exit should not be an unconscionable demand.

That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist. — schopenhauer1

I am denying that the absence of states of affairs can be better/worse in any meaningful way without a being. More importantly, I reject the double standard that attempts to devalue that which is positive.

That's the point. Don't bring about X so Y doesn't happen. Cause and effect. Future conditional. If this, then that could happen. Don't do this. — schopenhauer1

X not happening results in A happening instead, which is good for Z. When Z is not there in the first place, the absence of X or A means nothing to Z. However, if it does in one case, I don't see any good reason to think that it doesn't in the other.

You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true. — schopenhauer1

Not really. It is you, I think, who is projecting value judgements onto nothingness by conflating the absence of a being and the presence of some good that supposedly comes from it. Also, if/them statements stretch beyond the negative.