An Unpopular Conviction

Proteus wrote:

Star Forge wrote: First of all, life does contain suffering, no matter if it is a lot or hardly any. One of the key points behind antinatalism is that what pleasure that may or may not be contained in life does not void, numerically counterbalance, or otherwise make up for the bad.

Hmm.. Interesting. So if I have read this correctly, to follow antinatalism is to feel that there is no amount of good elements to life that makes any suffering worth it? Would this mean that it dismisses all significance in what others find beautiful, positive, and uplifting?

And the smallest suffering, devalues life so much, that it is not worth bringing a child into this world?

Proteus wrote:

Star Forge wrote: First of all, life does contain suffering, no matter if it is a lot or hardly any. One of the key points behind antinatalism is that what pleasure that may or may not be contained in life does not void, numerically counterbalance, or otherwise make up for the bad.

Hmm.. Interesting. So if I have read this correctly, to follow antinatalism is to feel that there is no amount of good elements to life that makes any suffering worth it? Would this mean that it dismisses all significance in what others find beautiful, positive, and uplifting?

That's your choice, and I'm glad you're able to overlook the bad. However, the point is that the unborn, theoretical person cannot make the choice themselves as to whether or not they consider it worth it.

Like I said in a previous post, I know it's pretty damn impossible for antinatalism to be adopted by a significant number of people, but for the sake of being able to function in society, I tolerate people who become parents as a side effect of sex. People who intentionally procreate, I have nothing to do with.

Star Forge wrote:

Proteus wrote:

Star Forge wrote: First of all, life does contain suffering, no matter if it is a lot or hardly any. One of the key points behind antinatalism is that what pleasure that may or may not be contained in life does not void, numerically counterbalance, or otherwise make up for the bad.

Hmm.. Interesting. So if I have read this correctly, to follow antinatalism is to feel that there is no amount of good elements to life that makes any suffering worth it? Would this mean that it dismisses all significance in what others find beautiful, positive, and uplifting?

That's your choice, and I'm glad you're able to overlook the bad. However, the point is that the unborn, theoretical person cannot make the choice themselves as to whether or not they consider it worth it.

Like I said in a previous post, I know it's pretty damn impossible for antinatalism to be adopted by a significant number of people, but for the sake of being able to function in society, I tolerate people who become parents as a side effect of sex. People who intentionally procreate, I have nothing to do with.

Hmm... okay, so the way of antinatalism, if I'm reading you correctly, assumes that [under the idea that a soul exists in man] a pre-existing soul does not choose to be born unto the world, but rather is forced to, and that we as people are the one's forcing these souls into this world. Furthermore, it is assumed that since this world has suffering in it at all, that by default, should (and may likely be) deemed not worth the experience of everything else. Am I correct?

One thing we've got to do away with is all this talk of souls floating around in a sort of celestial lobby, waiting to be reborn. While it may or may not be true, it's not observable or proven so we cannot base our argument on such an assumption.

I will state once more, with every bit of clarity I have in me...

1. Life contains suffering
2. The hypothetical person (the unborn) has no choice as to whether or not they are conceived.
3. Therefore, they cannot decide whether or not they consider some other aspect of life to be worth the suffering or not.
4. ALL reasons for reproduction benefit none other than the already living, and there is no way they can benefit the hypothetical unborn person. Whether it be in the olden days where one's kids were their social security or simply needed farmhands (the latter always makes me sick), or whether it be to continue a race, or to fill some hereditary role, or simply because the couple wants a kid because it is the societal norm, or for religious reasons, or whatever, it is completely self-serving on the part of the already living.
5. Therefore, I consider reproduction unethical and refuse to have any part in it, hence my antinatalism. This is my personal choice and I will never try to interfere in the sex or family lives of others. I'll help spread the literature and get the message across, but that is it.

Star Forge wrote: One thing we've got to do away with is all this talk of souls floating around in a sort of celestial lobby, waiting to be reborn. While it may or may not be true, it's not observable or proven so we cannot base our argument on such an assumption.

I will state once more, with every bit of clarity I have in me...

1. Life contains suffering
2. The hypothetical person (the unborn) has no choice as to whether or not they are conceived.
3. Therefore, they cannot decide whether or not they consider some other aspect of life to be worth the suffering or not.
4. ALL reasons for reproduction benefit none other than the already living, and there is no way they can benefit the hypothetical unborn person. Whether it be in the olden days where one's kids were their social security or simply needed farmhands (the latter always makes me sick), or whether it be to continue a race, or to fill some hereditary role, or simply because the couple wants a kid because it is the societal norm, or for religious reasons, or whatever, it is completely self-serving on the part of the already living.
5. Therefore, I consider reproduction unethical and refuse to have any part in it, hence my antinatalism. This is my personal choice and I will never try to interfere in the sex or family lives of others. I'll help spread the literature and get the message across, but that is it.

Ahhh okay. I think I see what you are saying now. You do not agree with the intentional idea of "manufacturing" another life, as if they are cattle, or machines, clones, etc. Perhaps it seems less natural in that light than, say other animals who do it with (seemingly) no conscious planning of making another life, but simply getting its rocks off, and as a side-effect, life is thus created. Is that more correct?

Star Forge wrote: I'll help spread the literature and get the message across, but that is it.

OK I can understand why victims of high level pain and suffering might choose that path;

1. the anti-natalist might be actually trying to shield themselves from any sense of guilt if something they created felt similar pain to what they themselves felt (fear),
2. the anti-natalist was unable to trust themselves to protect the child from abuse (child abuse),
3. the anti-natalist was unable to provide sufficient welfare (poverty),
4. the anti-natalist expected social conditions to severaly deteriote in the near future (wars).

Otherwise I dont think it will get much traction beyond the severe chronically ill. I'm just trying to categorise the types of suffering a child might experience. Otherwise low to moderate levels of pain and suffering are way too relative, and usually treatible, for me to consider it a strong enough argument to even contemplate.

That kind of removes the severity of it, but yes, that's pretty much it. I mean, I grew up in a very conservative Christian setting with people bitching about how cloning would be "playing God." Natural reproduction kind of accomplishes the same end, so to me it's no better than cloning, just more reliable. Yes, I think that human reproduction is immoral, as it is not our place to create a sentient being which has no will or say in whether or not it will exist. Animal reproduction is not justification. Animals practice cannibalism, but we consider human cannibalism to be extremely wrong. They also pracice necrophilia in some cases, but, like cannibalism, human necrophilia is considered immoral and repulsive. So, as you rightly said, human reproduction and that of animals are not comparable in regards to intent and motive (or lack thereof).

I think the reason antinatalism is considered so alien, so crazy, so wrong is that it goes against a lot of things that have been the norm for a long time. I mean, even in the West, child bearing and raising was considered to be a woman's primary occupation for the most part until perhaps the mid 20th century. Most couples reproduce, whether intentionally (the thought of it makes me gag), or as a side-effect of sex (a great deal easier to reason out in my mind). Also, as we have seen with the Duggars and other extreme fundamentalists, reproduction can occupy a high place in religion, perhaps because it greatly contributes to the untra-conservative trend of keeping women oppressed. And, as my previous post stated, there are logical, practical reasons for reproduction, but those merely consist of creating a child simply because they didn't (and we still don't) have the technology to create robot to do all the same things.

Think about it, what motive can one have for reproduction that is in the best interests of the hypothetical unborn person? I mean, think of every possible reason people have to reproduce, and none of them benefit the unborn, and only one is not self-serving, and that is the only one which I find acceptable, which, as I said, is merely as a side-effect of sex.

Star Forge wrote: Think about it, what motive can one have for reproduction that is in the best interests of the hypothetical unborn person? I mean, think of every possible reason people have to reproduce, and none of them benefit the unborn, and only one is not self-serving, and that is the only one which I find acceptable, which, as I said, is merely as a side-effect of sex.

That's easy, pleasure/love/enlightenment/joy etc. Those things are so much more powerful then pain and suffering and actually the potential for pleasure is much higher then the potential for pain is deep - at least for me.

Think about it, what motive can one have for reproduction that is in the best interests of the hypothetical unborn person? I mean, think of every possible reason people have to reproduce, and none of them benefit the unborn, and only one is not self-serving, and that is the only one which I find acceptable, which, as I said, is merely as a side-effect of sex.

It's not about "one person" or "one possible person", it is about us all...

Why must there be a motive?

My wife and i each have "unintended" children from previous relationships, both girls....

And, we wanted the one we have together, our son...

I'm pretty sure if you ask him, his twelve years on this planet have been pretty good... Real good, actually...

You are speaking of something which you have "theoretical" knowledge... Maybe "limited" knowledge would be a better way to say it...

You, have the experience of your life... From what I'm reading here, maybe you haven't had such a good life... I'm sorry.. I'm not responsible, but, I'm sorry...

You are an expert on your life, how it feels, how you feel...

I'm done now....

I prolly won't read any more in this thread, if i do, I'm going to try not to respond...

Good luck to you...

And, May the Force be with You....

Star Forge wrote: One thing we've got to do away with is all this talk of souls floating around in a sort of celestial lobby, waiting to be reborn. While it may or may not be true, it's not observable or proven so we cannot base our argument on such an assumption.

I will state once more, with every bit of clarity I have in me...

1. Life contains suffering
2. The hypothetical person (the unborn) has no choice as to whether or not they are conceived.

If we can't make our argument based on that assumption, why do you get to? I stopped right there because #2 can't be proven either. It's a premise that is based on an unproven assumption so the rest of the conclusions you make are faulty. I hate to make an argument for possibility over probability, but there it is. But you're telling us we have to follow certain rules of logic while ignoring them yourself.

(I didn't really want to get too involved in this thread because as it makes Star Forge gag about intentional pregnancy, this thread while not making me gag, makes me very uneasy; a tremor or warning in the Force as it were.)