P1 : Human experience is bad, negative, undesirable.
P2 : We should act to reduce that which is bad, negative, undesirable.

Therefore we should strive toward the cessation of human experience, preferably nonviolently, by discouraging reproduction. — plaque flag

It doesn't have to be human.

Many reasons surely. — Manuel

Suffering I think.

Incidentally, the post you replied to is 8 months old. I have no interest in discussing anti-natalism, maybe others will. I find it quite tedious and boring. — Manuel

Okay. I mean you posted on a forum, you should expect people to respond.

If you want to discuss Mainländer's metaphysics and epistemology, then we can do that, as that's quite fascinating. — Manuel

Daft stuff altogether.

It's hard to generalize when speaking of so many people. I do not doubt that many of them suffer. But they don't solely suffer, there are other things in life too, like joy and love and laughter. — Manuel

My point is that there is a good reason the religions exist right?

The point is that most people (not all) prefer to go on living, till' it's time to go - as everyone eventually will. — Manuel

Just another version of "why don't you commit suicide?"

You're speaking for those billions of people who are religious too? For those it doesn't seem life in and of itself is good.

What I meant was saying that the absence of harms is good, which is something that many say. — DA671

Including me. For existing people!

For the person for whom it is "better" to not suffer even though they don't even exist. — DA671

They don't exist nothing can be good or bad for them. Only existing people can suffer or enjoy harms and benefits.

then the lack of happiness is also bad. — DA671

I'll just keep asking; for whom is it bad?

By "celebrating", I meant saying that it is good. — DA671

You said celebrating harms. Did you not? No one is doing that.

A society in which people are casually breaking people's legs will likely descend into anarchy, so I would not agree with it — DA671

So why is it okay give people age related disease and loss of ability?

There is nobody to feel good/satisfied as a result of not experiencing suffering in nothingness. — DA671

Correct! Which is neutral! Nothing immoral has happened.

In this case, procreation becomes a more of an individual matter that can differ from person to person. — DA671

Procreation is intrinsically NOT a personal matter. Firstly you need two people to do it and a third or even more persons are created who have no say in the matter.

But if we need to celebrate all the harms we prevented for non-existent beings — DA671

Wait. Who is celebrating harms?

then we do have to worry about the absence of the positive experiences — DA671

For whom?! Deprivation of pleasures is only for the existing not the non existing.

As for me, I think that, assuming that this really is twice as much happiness, I don't think that breaking my leg would be that bad — DA671

My leg not yours! You will give your kids the gift of disease and decay for your needs without the possibility of consent. That's what my thought experiment is supposed to be about but you missed it.

Whoever this is apparently good/better for. — DA671

There is nobody to be miss those goods. How come you can't see that?

However, non-existent beings are not in some blissful state that would be jeopardised by our act of creation — DA671

Absolutely you're kind of getting it. I don't think we need to worry then about creating people no one gets hurt because of our needs if we choose not to create them.

Existing beings can already be satisfied with what they have and therefore don't need endless interventions for happiness that may involve unnecessary risks — DA671

If this is true no one would procreate.

And if the absence of suffering would be good even if nobody experiences that state, then it can also be bad, even if nobody is being haunted. — DA671

Bad for whom?

Neither is it good/better for anybody. Nobody experiences a profit prior to existence. — DA671

The answer is no one will be harmed by this. The non existent don't suffer.

I would hope that metaphorical/poetic language has not been relegated to the sidelines by all. — DA671

It's complete unacceptable to me, has been the root cause of so much ugliness.

then the lack of happiness will certainly be an issue — DA671

Only for people who exist to be deprived of goods.

The silence would only be a haunting reminder of the immorality that has occurred. — DA671

No it wouldn't lol. There'd be no one there to be haunted! Please tell me you can recognise that?

The absence of suffering also only matters to existing people as it allows them to live happier lives. If we are saying that it is good/better even for those who don't exist, then the only consistent view would be that the prevention of happiness is problematic — DA671

If I told you could feel 2.5 x better(happier) for 4 years but you had to break my leg. Would you do it?

Discarding the possibility of a myriad of good experiences for sentient beings is bad. — DA671

Bad for whom? No one suffers the loss.

I would say that the positives are also good/necessary to create good experiences. — DA671

They're not tho. We've no duty to create them. If the universe went silent there'd be no issue.

if the positives do matter and the prevention of suffering is good — DA671

Only to existing people.

then never giving birth would cause a reality in which we would also have to contend with the ethically problematic state of affairs of very few positives — DA671

Only for those who exist in such a world. But if no one existed in such a world there'd be no ethical concern. Rocks floating around in the void is neither bad nor good. But sparing sentient beings harms is good.

Camus was wrong <shrugs>

Buddhists — DA671

Religious Buddhists believe something as unverifiable and irrationally optimistic as Christians.

The fact that everyone will definitely go through at least some good moments is a good state of affairs. — DA671

But they're not necessary. And then you have to contend with the negative nature of acquiring so called goods within this reality (Schopenhauer). The asymmetry tells one there is no duty to create new sentient beings.

She was referring to optimism here. — DA671

She was an ardent Christian.

I am sure that Camus was not a theist when he wrote about the invincible summer within him. — DA671

Died at 47. Hard to know how authentic he was.

then the lack happiness is also bad — DA671

No because no one is deprived of the happiness. No one suffers. No one loses. There is no one. But when you create someone they will most certainly be harmed and that's a bad state of affairs.

faith that leads to achievement — DA671

Ah religion. Can't really go much further with that.

However, if there are positives that do matter, then it can be justifiable (and good) to do so — DA671

Only to those who exist. Not to prospective beings.

But you're surely not suggesting creating blind people so that they can learn to be resilient?

That's perverse. Or I'm insane.

resilience — DA671

Resilience? Wait why is that in the list?

Sure, it is possible (though I don't think that most people in all areas die of cancer). It's also true that I will no longer die of smallpox. Similarly, as someone who has suffered from multiple illnesses that essentially confined me to my house for years, I have also found that seemingly insignificant things (reading, family, art, etc.) can have indescribable value that can outweigh moments of great pain. For now, I can only appreciate what I have and hopefully do some good for others in this fascinating universe of ours. — DA671

Does this justify procreation tho?

XD

Okay so we're talking about the asymmetry now? Or my week?

We're trying to walk two paths here. 1) the asymmetry we could talk about that. 2) you talking about my perceptions of my life.

1) is fine to talk about.
2) is not, is patronizing and I wish you'd stop.

Who said the truth had to give comfort?

Did you know it's true you'll probably die of cancer?

I agree with the asymmetry don't get me wrong. I think it's correct. Benatar just formalized something I already thought.

If you could be terribly wrong please let it rest for goodness sake.

Well I don't judge my experiences of the world by what Benatar tells me.

I suppose you have the correct perspective then?

Okay I guess that's the impasse then.

Telling people they're not perceiving things right and that their feelings are invalid is patronizing.

I'm curious, are you aware of the axiological asymmetry?

"There are also moments of fulfilment even when we don't care."

How patronizing.

"There is no empirical evidence that most people don't value their lives or that there aren't good moments that we did not expect."

Well cool, because I never claimed that. I won't take a your suicide link as generalisable. Not to mention this isn't about suicide it's about sparing people the harms of life.

"A more than trivial amount of suffering has been eradicated..."

And new diseases related to longer life etc. Improvements and betterment do not equate to good.

"I am not saying that this is true for all. This is why I am a staunch supporter of allowing people to find a graceful exit if they cannot discover any good in their lives."

You're making this about suicide again and not about the ethics of procreation. Two different things.

"In my view, both universal antinatalism and absolute pro-natalism are flawed."

Universal antinatalism doesn't exist and probably never will but doesn't stop the stance being correct.
Absolute pro-natalism is the status quo.

"I hope that you will have an excellent week! " I'll have a week whether I want it or not.

Omg. I don't know why it would seem attractive from the outside.

I'm none the wiser.

Ah. No I mean now.

Yes.
Still curious why people find it attractive.

I have no idea. Christianity as I understand it is false. But there you are promised salvation whatever it means. Stoicism is far less anchored.