Antinatalism.

[Dexta]

TV dinners, pets, endorphins, art...

[Szuchow]

I was just highlighting the bits I was addressing with the BOLD.

I too like big letters.

Why deem pleasures merely hypothetical yet suffering irrefutably factual?

Ever seen someone who did not suffer in his entire life? Just ask any newborn dying hours after birth what they experienced.

Given that humans invariably seek and indulge in pleasures, as well as avoiding suffering wherever possible, it stands to reason that pleasure would be MORE commonplace than suffering, especially for we materially rich Westerners. This is also born out in the fact that most people don't commit suicide.

Seeking does not mean achieving and avoiding does not mean being successful in it.  Most people don't commit suicides that's true, but they might be merely content (not happy), inured to suffering or deeming pleasure outweighing suffering for the moment but if they wouldn't be born they wouldn't suffer at all.

I know this is a longshot, but you don't look like this by any chance Szuchow?

Isn't it your picture?

[Minimalist]

It doesn't seem as if there is a single first-world country which is not suffering the same problem.  Women, having won a taste of economic freedom, are resisting having gaggles of kids from China to Europe.  

And, as someone recently pointed out, immigration would solve the problem but instead it has given rise to right-wing blowback from the people who think their flailing culture is the only one worth saving.

Glad I won't be around to see the end result of this.  Coupled with climate change it will not be pretty.

[epronovost]

I disagree. I don't think that unsuitable people have right to bring a new life into this world when they can't even take care of themselves. It's not a right to have a kid but responsibility, one for which many people are unready. In my view "right" of would be parent does not trump well being of would be child.

That might be a point where making a distinction between morality and politics might be useful in my opinion.

From a moral standpoint I do agree with you. Having a child is a responsibility and nobody should have a child they do not think they can take for or who can't be adopted very quickly by someone who can. 

From a political standpoint though, I think that anybody should have the children we want. I think it's much preferable to deal with the aftermath of terrible decisions on parenthood than having the government nosing into people, especially women, sexual and reproductive life. The cost, risks and problems raised by empowering the government to stop irresponsible decisions appears to me far too great. If I were a woman, I would be very warry of the idea of the government deciding what to do with my pregnancy and sexual life in general.  

Gov should help all citizens whether young or old that goes without saying but it does not mean that people can be irresponsible with decision fraught with so many issues as reproduction.

I know this is a slippery slope argument, but isn't also right of other issues of irresponsibility and body autonomy? We let people eat unhealthy food despite the terrible consequences of it. We even let people drink alcohol and smoke despite the fact these produces are known to cause cancer and have many other terrible side effects on society and health. Prohibition was nonetheless a disastrous politics; as is the current war on drugs even though alcohol consumption and drug use are terrible for personal health and society in general. I fear State sanctioned birth control would be a similar well intentioned disaster.

Perhaps mandatory courses?

Family economics and/or sexual education courses are very common if not mandatory in many countries. I would not be surprised if Poland offers neither since it's ruled by fucking idiots, but the idea of educating people as to what parenthood is already in place in many area. I greatly support those endeavors. 

I think that it makes perfect sense, it simply stand in contrast to many people wishes. Having the child does not mean creating suffering, sure. It however means subjecting the kid to the suffering that it wouldn't be subjected to otherwise.

But it also means subjecting the kid to all the joy, happiness and contentment that he wouldn't be subjected to otherwise. Had the child never been born, they would have never been subjected to emotional or sensorial experience at all. I think that trying to reduce the risk of suffering by controlling who gets born from who is largely a futile endeavor. Those resources and efforts would be more productively put in improving the living conditions of children already born and alive. If their condition improves the likeliness of having happier children in the future grows too. If the goal is less unhappy and suffering children, I think there are far better ways the ideas presented by antinatalism.

As for anecdotes - I do not enjoy life and if I would have magic option not to be born I would certainly chose it. 

I don't think there is any antinatalist or person sympathetic to antinatalism that enjoys life and I think that there lies the crux of the debate. How can someone who doesn't enjoy life be in favor of creating or fostering more of it? Everything else is just rationalization of that point. I just want to mention that though we don't agree on this subject, I don't think you are morally wrong. Your heart is at the right place and I don't think there is much I can say that will convince you on this subject (or you me). I think it strikes at something too deeply personal and emotional for that. Thank you for sharing anyway. It's a good subject of discussion and reflection anyway.

[Dexta]

Yep, as with so much in life it's a case of projection/false consensus effect. In short, Szuchow thinks life sucks so he assumes everybody else thinks it sucks too. I for one can attest to the fact that he is wrong, at least in my case, with total certainty. Seasonally speaking, I'm also pretty certain there is a bizarre phenomenon known as "children REALLY enjoying Christmas!" Oh, the pitiful fools, they know not of the vortex of inexecrable suffering that is the truth of life  :considers having another chocolate doughnut:

[Szuchow]

That might be a point where making a distinction between morality and politics might be useful in my opinion.

From a moral standpoint I do agree with you. Having a child is a responsibility and nobody should have a child they do not think they can take for or who can't be adopted very quickly by someone who can.

Sure. Here we agree.

From a political standpoint though, I think that anybody should have the children we want. I think it's much preferable to deal with the aftermath of terrible decisions on parenthood than having the government nosing into people, especially women, sexual and reproductive life. The cost, risks and problems raised by empowering the government to stop irresponsible decisions appears to me far too great. If I were a woman, I would be very warry of the idea of the government deciding what to do with my pregnancy and sexual life in general.

I don't like it (that is the idea that all people no matter how unsuitable should be allowed to have children) in the abstract but I also don't like too intrusive gov both in abstract and practice. I guess it means I would be in favor of mandatory courses on raising kids or something like that as while idea of child license does not sound bad at first glance (to me at least) it appears to look scary when one looks deeper.

I know this is a slippery slope argument, but isn't also right of other issues of irresponsibility and body autonomy? We let people eat unhealthy food despite the terrible consequences of it. We even let people drink alcohol and smoke despite the fact these produces are known to cause cancer and have many other terrible side effects on society and health. Prohibition was nonetheless a disastrous politics; as is the current war on drugs even though alcohol consumption and drug use are terrible for personal health and society in general. I fear State sanctioned birth control would be a similar well intentioned disaster.

I don't really speak in terms of politics. I'm in favor of antinatalism but not to the point of enforcing it by law (not that I would expect a great success with enforcement). For me it is issue of right to having kids and would be kids right to have a good life and here I put zero value on "rights" of would be parents.

I think that state sanctioned birth control would result in something both ugly and unworkable.

Family economics and/or sexual education courses are very common if not mandatory in many countries. I would not be surprised if Poland offers neither since it's ruled by fucking idiots, but the idea of educating people as to what parenthood is already in place in many area. I greatly support those endeavors.

There was something akin to it when I was in school but it dealt merely with mechanics of sex if I remember correctly. Not that I would trust polish gov with making sensible curriculum. 

But it also means subjecting the kid to all the joy, happiness and contentment that he wouldn't be subjected to otherwise. Had the child never been born, they would have never been subjected to emotional or sensorial experience at all. I think that trying to reduce the risk of suffering by controlling who gets born from who is largely a futile endeavor. Those resources and efforts would be more productively put in improving the living conditions of children already born and alive. If their condition improves the likeliness of having happier children in the future grows too. If the goal is less unhappy and suffering children, I think there are far better ways the ideas presented by antinatalism.

Yes but in my view prevalence of suffering trumps smatterings of joy thus making forcing existence onto someone wrong. Also resources can be easily allocated to both - that is education and improving the living conditions.

He who saves one life saves world entire is one of only religious (or coming from religious sources) sentiments that I agree with and with slight tweaking it can apply here. If even one life would be saved (from being born to suffer) by promoting antinatalism then it would already served it's purpose as eliminating the suffering of one person is eliminating suffering of entire world.

I don't think there is any antinatalist or person sympathetic to antinatalism that enjoys life and I think that there lies the crux of the debate. How can someone who doesn't enjoy life be in favor of creating or fostering more of it? Everything else is just rationalization of that point. I just want to mention that though we don't agree on this subject, I don't think you are morally wrong. Your heart is at the right place and I don't think there is much I can say that will convince you on this subject (or you me). I think it strikes at something too deeply personal and emotional for that. Thank you for sharing anyway. It's a good subject of discussion and reflection anyway.

I wouldn't call it rationalization on my part but nemo iudex in causa sua to use perhaps ill fitting Latin phrase.  I too don't think that one of us can convince another as I simply don't recognize would be parents "right" to have a kid.

[Szuchow]

Yep, as with so much in life it's a case of projection/false consensus effect. In short, Szuchow thinks life sucks so he assumes everybody else thinks it sucks too. I for one can attest to the fact that he is wrong, at least in my case, with total certainty. Seasonally speaking, I'm also pretty certain there is a bizarre phenomenon known as "children REALLY enjoying Christmas!" Oh, the pitiful fools, they know not of the vortex of inexecrable suffering that is the truth of life  :considers having another chocolate doughnut:

Armchair psychologist for the win.   

But feel free to think that life is nothing but sunshine and rainbows and kids are invariably grateful to selfish parents for whom breeding is height of what they will achieve in life.  Also christmas as counter to antinatalism. Even Socrates - wisest of men - would be in awe of your brilliance 

[Rhythmcs]

It's pretty clear that a person who references a dismal view of life in their explanation for why bringing a child into is morally wrong..has a dismal view of life.

I think you did hit something right on the head just then, though. To kids, even the poorest of kids. Life often is sunshine and rainbows. IDK if it's greater knowledge or more experience or less stamina left to withstand any more blows - and especially when you have alot of kids - but the kids themselves are experts at turning lemons into lemonade. A significant amount of the remorse and regret and suffering involved in parenting is not borne by the child even if the parents try to make it so, which, generously..most of us do not (even if that's how it ends up too often).

To many of us, I think..but to me at least, the hope is that we create adults with just a little more than we had, however little that may have been. We were also children once, we have been through what you are referencing as a reason that we should not have been - and our children, even if we assume that everything you say is true, will...we hope..suffer just a little less in that accounting than we had to. It's a paradox of suffering, in a maximalist sense, that there can be a scenario in which every single person in society suffers less, and greatly less, than their progenitors..but that overall suffering is more, and greatly more, than at any time before.

[mordant]

I'm a bit late to this party, but ...

I have some empathy for the anti-natalist position, but find it of no practical value. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, anti-natalism demands that humans stop reproducing and that the human race die out. That is not going to happen, for reasons I probably don't have to elucidate.

I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask to suffer. Nevertheless, here I am. After almost 67 years of this horseshit, frankly I would rather not have bothered. That said ... I do have compelling interests, things that I enjoy doing. I have never even come close to overcoming my survival instinct to end my life out of misery or boredom. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to visualize ways that could happen at some point in the future, I suppose.

But until it does ... I'm going to keep writing computer software because I am eager to get started on the work each and every morning. And I'm going to keep being a husband and [step]father despite the sometimes thankless nature of those roles and despite that at times I wonder if I wouldn't have been better off walking this path alone, if only I could have somehow overcome the Fear Of Missing Out.

And if you don't try to make life some overwrought soaring symphony of contrived cosmic meaning, but just accept and embrace what's right about it, and just sort of let the rest pass through you ... it's in a sense quite the privilege to be alive, considering the alternative.

Knowing what I know now, would I have brought kids into this world? No way, though it has less to do with the inherent suffering than with what we humans have made the world into in the past few generations -- we just had to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's what we do, I guess.

[Szuchow]

I'm a bit late to this party, but ...

I have some empathy for the anti-natalist position, but find it of no practical value. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, anti-natalism demands that humans stop reproducing and that the human race die out. That is not going to happen, for reasons I probably don't have to elucidate.

Of course it won't happen but as far as I am concerned humans ain't special. Were we to die off it wouldn't be a greater loss than extinction of any other species.

I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask to suffer. Nevertheless, here I am. After almost 67 years of this horseshit, frankly I would rather not have bothered. That said ... I do have compelling interests, things that I enjoy doing. I have never even come close to overcoming my survival instinct to end my life out of misery or boredom. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to visualize ways that could happen at some point in the future, I suppose.

I would prefer not to be born but that it's just shit birth happens. As for suicide while I'm not against it in theory in practice it just spreads misery as I somehow doubt that my family would understand reasoning of not wanting to live in the first place.

But until it does ... I'm going to keep writing computer software because I am eager to get started on the work each and every morning. And I'm going to keep being a husband and [step]father despite the sometimes thankless nature of those roles and despite that at times I wonder if I wouldn't have been better off walking this path alone, if only I could have somehow overcome the Fear Of Missing Out.

I too will continue living and sometimes even snatching tiny bits of happiness but that does not change the fundamentals - I didn't asked for it and yet I'm trapped in it.

And if you don't try to make life some overwrought soaring symphony of contrived cosmic meaning, but just accept and embrace what's right about it, and just sort of let the rest pass through you ... it's in a sense quite the privilege to be alive, considering the alternative.

I don't think that life has some meaning nor I think that this is a privilege. It's something unasked for, perhaps something like a shitty gift than you can't exactly return without making scene. To quote a title of some old Polish film one can describe Life as a Fatal Sexually Transmitted Disease.