Why it is wrong for humans to breed

[Red]

Once more: that's not how this works. Either make the points afresh, or don't bother.

Why though? Why waste the time writing the same thing again if it's already been written?

Anyway, you now accept, presumably, that the offspring of rich - or just moderately well off - intelligent people are not likely to be vegans?

Is there any concrete, causation evidence?

And thus you accept, if you realise what follows from what, that for such people to procreate would therefore be to almost certainly create more harm than good?

We can't say for sure.

Well, to talk like you, where the hell did I say otherwise?

I was addressing your argument.

The point is not that we're utterly incapable of being a force for good, the point is that it is incredibly unlikely that your offspring, or the offspring of others, are going to make the changes necessary.

What are the chances? 10%? 5%? 1%? How do you arrive at this figure? How do you quantify good or bad? Do you have any evidence?

If you give a kid a loaded gun in a shopping mall then, chances are, carnage is about to occur, yes? It doesn't 'have' to - there's nothing metaphysically necessary about it. It's just incredibly likely. And so only a fool would give a kid a loaded gun in a shopping mall. Likewise, if this generation has kids then, chances are, those kids will do more harm than good. Doesn't have to be that way - but it's going to be, isn't it?

I don't disagree that most people shouldn't have kids. When the hell did I say otherwise?

According to me. I said it.

Oh, sorry, I forgot you were the authority on this. I apologize profusely for my error.

Come on, is that really your reason? That just seems like such a blatant cop out (in that it's an excuse for you to be lazy so as to not read it). Is this the internet consensus? I didn't know that such rules applied. I'm starting to get the feeling you're trolling.

I don't care who you are, I'm not going to listen to the special rules you made up when debating you.

If you're gonna be like that, you have to read every link I posted in it's entirety, and must give me a summary before we continue discussion. Why? Because I'm the authority here. These are my special rules when debating me. According to me. I said it.

I can understand discussing certain debating etiquette, but this is just ridiculous. I thought it was pretty well established that if someone links something relevant, the bare minimum you can do is at least skim the beginning.

You don't even have to read the whole thread; The first few posts of it are all that you need.

This is a debate I started to discuss arguments I made. I'm not going to click on any links.

WHY? What is the harm?

Look, don't assume I'm ignorant.

At least one person in a debate is the ignorant one, no?

That's your working assumption - yes? That I'm not up to speed on this issue. Now, why assume that?

My only assumption is that you haven't listened to the other side.

This is a 'philosophy' forum, yes? Philosophers make arguments. They debate. So just do that.

Would you not consider me linking a scientific study an 'argument'? I don't see the difference.

Just because someone makes arguments doesn't make them a philosopher. Do you consider Ayn Rand or Julius Evola 'philosophers'?

I never claimed to be a philosopher.

Just make an argument or address an argument, don't direct people to literature.

I didn't - I just presented some arguments.

Right, and I linked you to threads that address your arguments.

Now, if there's something faulty about those arguments, just point out those faults.

The faults are pointed out in the links I posted.

You can demonstrate a fault by reason alone - you don't need any literature.

Can you reason why flat earthers are wrong without drawing upon a physics or Earth Science textbook or other sources? Can you reason that climate change is currently happening without linking any studies?

You can't reason your way out of everything. The supposed 'reasoning' can just be intuition disguised as reasoning.

Oftentimes you need some good concrete empirical evidence.

Er, you have self-control, I assume? If my arguments are of no interest to you, don't bother engaging with me about them then.

I did say they were my 'two cents.'

"My two cents" ("my 2¢") and its longer version "put my two cents in" is an American idiomatic expression,[1] taken from the original English idiom "to put in my two-penny worth" or "my two cents". It is used to preface a tentative statement of one’s opinion. By deprecating the opinion to follow—suggesting its value is only two cents, a very small amount—the user of the phrase, showing politeness and humility, hopes to lessen the impact of a possibly contentious statement.

But don't expect me to assume that you're a weary expert and all I need do to gain enlightenment is read your posts elsewhere. I mean, the arrogance of it! Plus, given the quality of your posts here, I have no confidence whatsoever that your posts elsewhere contain any insight.

I didn't write the post.

No, I'm not lazy, I'm just not stupid and I am not going to read your posts elsewhere

How would it make you stupid?

when the quality of your posts here give me no reason to think they'll be worth reading.

I didn't write the post.

This shows your laziness. If you weren't lazy, you would've clicked on them at the very least and realize I wasn't the author of them. Another major reason why I'm linking it is because I think the author of that thread is far more qualified to discuss this than I am.

Well, as you're too lazy to read the OP (because it was beneath you - but you thought you'd blurt something anyway), here's one argument.

I skimmed since I've already seen this play out before.

You. Can't. Consent. To. Be. Born. That means if you procreate, you force someone to live a life. And that's default wrong. Thus, procreation is default wrong.

How is this not conjecture?

You remind me of Jordan Peterson; framing conjecture as fact. Conjecture is not evidence, or even based on 'reasoning' really. It's just based on your assumptions and intuition.

Now, that remains the case no matter how rich or intelligent the procreator may be, yes?

I've lived a very privileged life, with food on my plate, a roof over my head, water, electricity, access to higher education, medical bills payed for, and plenty of cash leftover. I am actually quite fond of living, and am eternally thankful that my parents decided to have me. I have many goals in my life that I want to fulfill, and I am happy that I'm alive to at least have the chance to achieve them, especially considering the negligible odds of being born in the first place. I don't really feel as though I have the right to complain, since any problems I do have are so trivial.

Sure, I have tests to study for, gotta make sure I don't overspend, keep my relationships in check, etc., but these problems are symptoms of being privileged. I think it's fair to say that 99.99% of people who have ever lived wished that these were their worst problems.

I think if we strive to make everyone have the same life I do, and try to make the world a better place, and make life worth living, instead of just dismissing child bearing as immoral, people would be much happier to live.

But that's just my conjecture.

[Sunflowers]

Once more: that's not how this works. Either make the points afresh, or don't bother.

Why though? Why waste the time writing the same thing again if it's already been written?

Because that's how you engage in a discussion.

Anyway, you now accept, presumably, that the offspring of rich - or just moderately well off - intelligent people are not likely to be vegans?

Is there any concrete, causation evidence?

You can't answer a question with a question.

Well, to talk like you, where the hell did I say otherwise?

I was addressing your argument.

Back at you.

The point is not that we're utterly incapable of being a force for good, the point is that it is incredibly unlikely that your offspring, or the offspring of others, are going to make the changes necessary.

What are the chances? 10%? 5%? 1%? How do you quantify good or bad? Do you have any evidence?

I am not going to bother answering these questions as a) you're not remotely interested in the answers and b) you're not really getting the point.

According to me. I said it.

Oh, sorry, I forgot you were the authority on this. I apologize profusely for my error.

I didn't claim to be an authority. The point (and you seem to have difficulty grasping points) is that you shouldn't assume that I'm ignorant from the get go. You shouldn't assume I need edumacating. You should just address the arguments. You know, like you're not doing.

I don't care who you are, I'm not going to listen to the special rules you made up when debating you.

And I'm not going to click on any links. So either address something I've argued here with some words of your own, or go away.

If you're gonna be like that, you have to read every link I posted in it's entirety, and must give me a summary before we continue discussion. Why? Because I'm the authority here. There are my special rules when debating me. According to me. I said it.

Yes, that's your prerogative. But I'm not going to do it, because I see no reason to think you've got any insight to give (because someone who did, would just give it not refer people to their holy proclamations elsewhere).

I can understand discussing certain debating etiquette, but this is just ridiculous. I thought it was pretty well established that if someone links something relevant, the bare minimum you can do is at least skim the beginning.

I'd have thought it was pretty well established that you at least read the OP before pronouncing. And I'd have thought it was pretty well established that on an internet discussion forum you just have a discussion, you don't condenscendingly refer people to other literature (as if they didn't know their stuff).

You don't even have to read the whole thread; The first few posts of it are all that you need.

Why would I? Show me you're worth listening to by saying something worthwhile. Argue something.

Look, don't assume I'm ignorant.

At least one person in a debate is the ignorant one, no?

Er, no. In this debate, yes. And it's pretty obvious who it is. I mean, someone who actually knows their stuff - like wot I does - doesn't refer people to links. They just make the arguments.

For instance, if you started a discussion about free will and made some stupid argument about how we don't have it or something, I'd just criticise that argument. I wouldn't refer you to literature. I'd just take you outside and show you how it is.

That's your working assumption - yes? That I'm not up to speed on this issue. Now, why assume that?

My only assumption is that you haven't listened to the other side.

Well that's a false assumption. But tell you what, why don't you use your knowledge of the other side to make a good criticism of my arguments.

Just because someone makes arguments doesn't make them a philosopher. Do you consider Ayn Rand or Julius Evola 'philosophers'?

You're not very good at this, are you? I didn't claim that anyone who makes an argument is a philosopher. I said philosophers make arguments.

I never claimed to be a philosopher.

Believe me, I don't think you are.

The point - which has once more eluded you - is that this is a 'philosophy' forum. So that means there's an expectation that you'll actually engage in some philosophy in it. Do that.

I didn't - I just presented some arguments.

Right, and I linked you to threads that address your arguments.

Yes, but I made arguments - I didn't just say "there are at least three good arguments against having kids- here are some links". Why? Because that would have been lazy and contemptuous and silly and stupid. So address the arguments in your own words because putting in links is a waste of your time (not mine, note, but yours).

Anyway, I'm bored of responding to you now as you're clearly one of those who prefers to discuss things orthogonal to whatever issue is actually under debate.

[Jebus]

I'm not going to click on any links.

Since you started the thread, I assume this is a topic of interest to you. Aren't you interested in learning? Your viewpoints are missing out on a few of the nuances I think you can appreciate if you immerse yourself a bit more in the topic.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think any discussion on antinatalism needs to start with a basic litmus test of the other party's capacity of reason and pragmatism: that is, what @Jebus mentioned. Even if true, the actual outcome of the antinatalist message will only reach compassionate people who give a shit, and will not impress the average person. If there is any genetic component to these traits (and there's no reason to think there isn't), or if there's any component of nurture or upbringing (again, no reason to think there isn't), then that's a serious issue. It's a meme the propagation of which goes at odds to darwinian pressures, forcing itself out and in its wake taking out of the gene pool (and/or nurture pool) a lot of positive qualities that might have mitigated the effect of the ever so slightly larger population. Throughout history, religions and cults that opposed procreation have been exceptionally good at dying out.

I think if somebody can't understand and at least agree with that issue, then there's no point in discussing the subject. It doesn't matter if antinatalism as some general principle might be good or bad in consequence IF it were broadly adopted, what matters is what will actually happen if/when the message is spread. If the message is harmful in practice when spread and there's no means of reliably controlling that, what's the point of arguing about whether it's technically right in some imaginary world we don't live in? Probably not much point.

Some of this may come down to the difference between deontological and consequentialist reasoning, and that's yet another reason I don't think any real progress is likely on issues like these. A deontologist like Sunflowers trying to preach to a bunch of consequentialists is like a scriptural christian coming into a den of atheists and citing scripture; it's not compelling, because the foundations of his or her metaethics aren't compelling. Nothing deriving authority from that (like bizarre claims about babies not being able to consent to coming into existence) is going to sound like anything more than irrelevant crazy talk to consequentialists. If you find those kinds of arguments compelling I have a hard time understanding how your brain works, because I can't imagine finding an argument like that at all compelling or interesting; it's simply morally irrelevant.

[Red]

Because that's how you engage in a discussion.

According to your asinine rules.

If this were a real life debate where you can't reasonably expect someone to read a whole article in real time, sure, but this is an internet debate. And not even a live one. We each have the time to read the find sources.

You can't answer a question with a question.

You loaded your question with an assertion. It is perfectly fair to ask for evidence of said assertion.

I am not going to bother answering these questions as a) you're not remotely interested in the answers and b) you're not really getting the point.

So this how you engage in discussion then? Just dismiss my questions since my intellect is just too feeble for yours?

I didn't claim to be an authority.

But you said it was according to you. You are assuming a position of authority. How are you not seeing this?

The point (and you seem to have difficulty grasping points) is that you shouldn't assume that I'm ignorant from the get go.

So are you saying that you are 100% certain you aren't wrong?

You shouldn't assume I need edumacating.

You shouldn't assume you don't.

You should just address the arguments. You know, like you're not doing.

I am not addressing the arguments because they are already addressed in the posts I linked.

And I'm not going to click on any links.

Why are you so stubborn on this? I don't get it. What harm will come of it? What is the benefit over me trying to repeat the points in the post I linked?

As @Jebus pointed out, if you really are interested in discussion on this topic, you'd read more into it.

The posts I linked do a far better job refuting your points than I can.

So either address something I've argued here with some words of your own, or go away.

Either take the time to read the posts I linked, or go away.

I think it's fair to say that linking a post or some other source in response to a point counts as addressing it.

Yes, that's your prerogative. But I'm not going to do it, because I see no reason to think you've got any insight to give

I honestly never claimed to.

(because someone who did, would just give it not refer people to their holy proclamations elsewhere).

I refer to the authority of people who know more than me, and I am 100% certain that isn't you. If you can show flaws in the arguments in the posts I linked, as well as provide reasoning and evidence in regards to it, you'll change my mind.

I'd have thought it was pretty well established that you at least read the OP before pronouncing.

Yet you don't bother reading the posts I linked?

And I'd have thought it was pretty well established that on an internet discussion forum you just have a discussion, you don't condenscendingly refer people to other literature (as if they didn't know their stuff).

It's not even literature; literature implies long, high-rigor pieces of writing. These are just a few forum posts that will only take 15 minutes of your time (again, you only have to read the first few posts to read what I was referring to).

Why would I? Show me you're worth listening to by saying something worthwhile. Argue something.

Linking posts and other sources counts.

I've pointed you to some sources, and you refuse to even look at them. If I were telling you to read a whole tome just to get the idea of one thing that is mentioned, I can understand that.

Er, no. In this debate, yes. And it's pretty obvious who it is.

Well, at least you're honest about yourself.

I mean, someone who actually knows their stuff

"I in all my massive intellect actually am never wrong, and I have done some research. I don't have to listen to the opposing side because their brains are as feeble as tiny little sticks!"

Get some damn humility. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

- like wot I does - doesn't refer people to links. They just make the arguments.

Arguments aren't always going to help. As I've said, sometimes, you need some hard empirical evidence.

For instance, if you started a discussion about free will and made some stupid argument about how we don't have it or something, I'd just criticise that argument. I wouldn't refer you to literature.

What if I want to see evidence of claims?

I'd just take you outside and show you how it is.

You shouldn't always assume you're right in debates.

Well that's a false assumption. But tell you what, why don't you use your knowledge of the other side to make a good criticism of my arguments.

I don't know, I'm continually getting the impression that you haven't.

You're not very good at this, are you? I didn't claim that anyone who makes an argument is a philosopher. I said philosophers make arguments.

Not inherently was my point.

I never claimed to be a philosopher.

Believe me, I don't think you are.

I bet everything I have that you actually consider yourself to be a philosopher.

The point - which has once more eluded you - is that this is a 'philosophy' forum. So that means there's an expectation that you'll actually engage in some philosophy in it. Do that.

I've been on this forum much longer than you, and have engaged in many debates. I think I have a better idea about how things work around here.

Yes, but I made arguments - I didn't just say "there are at least three good arguments against having kids- here are some links". Why? Because that would have been lazy and contemptuous and silly and stupid.

You're the one being lazy and contempuous and silly and stupid by not even clicking the links. Th

So address the arguments in your own words because putting in links is a waste of your time (not mine, note, but yours).

This makes absolutely no sense. I put the links to save the time for both of us. You're the one wasting my time since you can't seem to comprehend basic internet debating etiquette.

If you actually care about this subject, read the links. If you have any further concerns, some fellow forum members will be willing to answer them.

Anyway, I'm bored of responding to you now as you're clearly one of those who prefers to discuss things orthogonal to whatever issue is actually under debate.

OK Boomer.

In regards to anti-natalism, I do have my views on it, but since I am not as well versed in it as I am other issues, that's why I am referring you to someone who is well versed in it. How can you not wrap your head around this?

[Sunflowers]

So, is there anyone who wants properly to address an argument in the OP? That is, is there anyone who wants actually to do some philosophy, as opposed to talking about philosophy?

[Sunflowers]

I'm not going to click on any links.

Since you started the thread, I assume this is a topic of interest to you. Aren't you interested in learning? Your viewpoints are missing out on a few of the nuances I think you can appreciate if you immerse yourself a bit more in the topic.

The assumption you are justified in making is that I am interested in a philosophical discussion of this issue.

What you've done is assume I'm ignorant of the subject and want to read about it.

No. False on both scores. I am familiar with the literature on this topic. And this is not a teaching forum and you are not academics (I assume).

So, I have posted some arguments. The reason for that was for them to provide the basis for a discussion.

[Sunflowers]

A deontologist like Sunflowers trying to preach to a bunch of consequentialists is like a scriptural christian coming into a den of atheists and citing scripture; it's not compelling, because the foundations of his or her metaethics aren't compelling. Nothing deriving authority from that (like bizarre claims about babies not being able to consent to coming into existence) is going to sound like anything more than irrelevant crazy talk to consequentialists. If you find those kinds of arguments compelling I have a hard time understanding how your brain works, because I can't imagine finding an argument like that at all compelling or interesting; it's simply morally irrelevant.

I am not a deontologist. I am a particularist. And I don't know why you're mentioning 'metaethics' given that this is an issue in normative ethics. But then I actually know my stuff, whereas you just think you do.

Anyway, how about actually addressing an argument in the OP?

[Not The Real JReg]

So, is there anyone who wants properly to address an argument in the OP? That is, is there anyone who wants actually to do some philosophy, as opposed to talking about philosophy?

I am a philosopher and would be very happy to rebut any arguments you have to make about whether it is wrong for humans to breed.

[Sunflowers]

I am a philosopher and would be very happy to rebut any arguments you have to make about whether it is wrong for humans to breed.

Do you agree that, normally anyway, it is wrong to impose something significant on someone else without their prior consent? Or at least that this is normally a wrong-making feature of those acts that have it?