I find that Antinatalism continues to be a very controversial and misunderstood topic.
Ask me questions and I’ll try my best to answer them.
One question at a time though. Otherwise it will get hectic.
Are you really an antinatalist?
Is this a trick question ? 
Yes.
And which kind are you?
The kind that says, in principle, sentient life is a bad thing?
Or maybe the kind that says, ‘At this moment in history, life is more bad than good – the quantity human life should be severely limited until the world can offer large-scale humanity more joy than sorrow.’?
Or some other kind altogether?
The kind who assigns a negative value to birth.
Life is certainly more bad than good. Always was and always will be, regardless of how good it may end up getting (and it is getting much better*).
Suggesting otherwise or implying that it is worth it, is equivalent to mocking the unspeakable suffering of mankind.
Having said, the question of how much suffering does life entail is irrelevant. It entails some and that is enough to justify antinatalism. A single second of boredom in an otherwise blissful existence would justify antinatalism. Why ? Because being born is a lose-lose situation:
Of course this runs against our intuitions. A single second of boredom ? What’s that when compared to the lifetime of pure bliss that would follow ? But that response stems from us knowing just how much suffering there usually is in the course of a life time and not so much from an honest comparison between existence and non-existence.
If life were a blissful experience, every second of it, from birth to death, I wouldn’t be an antinatalist. I wouldn’t be a natalist either. I would be indifferent to it. It wouldn’t matter if one procreated or not and questions such as “Is life worth living” would have no discernible meaning.
*Better Angels Of Our Nature - Steven Pinker
You would still be an antinatalist. The suffering you would want to avoid would be anything less than the maximum bliss state. Any world which is experienced, must have change and therefore a fluctuation in bliss … a rising and falling of that particular state.
In a world of bliss, a papercut is major suffering.
It is far more moral to preserve the third rock, Earth, than the homosapian species. 
Misguided Moralists… hmphh.
I know the opposition to antinatalism based on liberal over-optimism, Christian misunderstandings, and the over the top views of those who simply favor certain groupings of people being born over others. But, other than those three extremes and people’s simple desire for their own family to perpetuate, isn’t everybody essentially an antinatalist? My views have changed drastically in many ways throughout my life, but there was never a time when I wouldn’t have found it a good idea for as many random people as possible to stop breeding.
And note that “Les U. Knight” is a fake name.
Ever heard of a thought-experiment ? That’s what that was. I wasn’t actually suggesting that it would be possible for every second of life to be blissful.
You don’t need a thought experiment. No suffering is acceptable to you. You will always find suffering. Okay, that’s what you think.
It’s irrational but so be it.
You do need thought experiments. We all use them everyday. And in this case I needed people to imagine such a world so that they could more easily understand a point I was making.
If it can be avoided, and exists only because people are being mindless selfish drones, then yes, it is unacceptable. But I can easily imagine a situation where suffering is acceptable and even necessary. I’m a consequentialist after all. It’s a bit ironic that you’re calling me irrational. Anyway, do you have any specific questions regarding antinatalism or are you here just to derail the thread ?
Hello
I don’t mean to sound rude, I’m just asking an honest question, but if you really feel life is more painful than painful and are devoted to being antinatalist why wouldn’t you commit suicide?
And secondly how do you account for the fact that having a baby within a loving relationship feels and is intended to be an expression of love and reverence for ones partner?
They are selfish because you consider all acts to be selfish, even the altruistic ones. 
You have already prejudged all actions.
I’m not derailing the thread by bringing up flaws in your thinking. No, I don’t have any questions because you have already played this tune and you appear not to have learned anything new in the past few months.
That’s completely irrelevant. Having kids is selfish according to your own view of selfishness/altruism. Which by the way, is the view I usually take when discussing antinatalism in order to not confuse people even more.
I’m not following.
phyllo, you haven’t brought up any flaws in my thinking. I said that I woudn’t be an antinatalist if every single second of existence was blissful and you replied that such a world can’t possibly exist. A world like that can’t possibly exist, so what ? I never suggested that it could. I simply said that IF such a world existed, antinatalism would make no sense and neither would natalism. That’s much of what we do in philosophy, we play with hypothetical scenarios.Hypothetical, not real. If you don’t have any questions, then surely you must be trying to derail this thread. After all, it is titled “Ask an antinatalist anything”…
Even as a hypothetical, it would have to be completely static to meet your criteria of no suffering. Life without changes. Square circle… You think you can image it but actually you can’t.
But whatever.
Whether or not it would have to be completely static is irrelevant. It’s a damn thought experiment. It serves the purpose of facilitating thought process. We don’t need to go over the specific details of how exactly such a world would be possible because no one suggested that it would be possible in the first place. If I asked you to imagine a world where a"happiness pill" had been discovered and ingested by every single human being, would you complain that such a pill couldn’t exist ? Or that such a scenario wouldn’t be feasible because psychological habituation would kick in ? It’s a damn thought experiment phyllo.
I’m anti-natalist as well. My favorite part of anti-natalism is “No suffering…no deprivation.” 
So true and so brilliant.
My questions:
1.) How old are you and how long have you been an anti-natalist?
2.) If you are heterosexual, are you sterilized?
3.) Did you read “Better to have Never Been” by David Benatar?
4.) Does anti-natalism make you feel depressed at times?
5.) Have you heard this amazing interview with Benatar?
I think the abstract argument for anti-natalism – the argument that existence includes suffering - bad, and pleasure - good, but that non-existence includes no suffering - good, and no pleasure - neutral – fails.
First of all, I don’t know that I agree with that way of analyzing counterfactuals – I don’t see why, if we’re analyzing a choice between A and B, and in A some pleasure occurs, and in B everything else is the same as A except that no pleasure occurs – I see B as bad. And anti-natalism sees it as neutral - I don’t know if I agree with that.
The other aspect of anti-natalism is that it’s basically saying, ‘You shouldn’t want what you do want’. People want to live. They want to. And anti-natalism is basically saying, well, you shouldn’t. Why? Well, because of this abstract argument about the neutrality of counterfactual absence of pleasure. Well guess what…I don’t care about some abstract argument about the neutrality of counterfactual absence of pleasure. I like being alive. You’re not going to abstractly argue my bedrock preferences out of me. My preferences exist as they are, and some of them may change over the course of my life time, but if, at the end of the day, I say ‘I prefer to live rather than not to live,’ that really is the end of the story. There’s no ‘your preferences should be different’. Should with respect to what? Obviously not with respect to my preferences. So this abstract conception of ‘should’…in what sense is it compelling? Why should I? Why should I prefer that which I don’t prefer?
I don’t think any ‘should’ argument which doesn’t take into account my own preferences could possibly compel me. My preferences are changable, but…you can only change my preferences if you make references to other preferences of mine that can override the preferences you’re trying to change (eg you shouldn’t prefer to eat ice cream, because you prefer even more to be healthy, or something like that).
And since anti-natalism makes no reference to my preferences, but instead rests on some abstract argument about the counterfactual absence of pleasure being neutral, then my preferences remain untouched and I prefer to live rather than not to. And I notice that most other people do too. And that’s really enough to reject anti-natalism. My preferences are enough.
The meaning of ‘should’ in the statement ‘you should not prefer to live,’ when said by an anti-natalist, apparently lacks any form of compelling-ness. If some anti-natalist wants to attempt a full reduction of the term ‘should’ to show why it is compelling (or should be compelling 
) then I encourage that. I’m all for reducing abstractions!
There are many assumptions embedded in the argument so far:
-
no pain is good. I disagree. Some pleasures that entail pain would not simply be greater pleasures if they were identical but utterly devoid of pain/effort/discomfort. Overcoming pain and discomfort can be a source of pleasure.
-
Consciousness has no apparent value. If a being does not exist, a consciousness does not exist. If there were no consciousness in the world, there would be no pain, it’s true - there would also be nothing good. Nothing at all. No appreciation of beauty, no love, nothing that the non-suicidal antinatalist seeks to maximise in the currently living. That’s bad. So there’s suffering - big deal. Explain why suffering outweighs the consciousness that permits its experience as a value? Despite claims to the contrary, it appears to be a philosophical stance that hates life, dressed up as one that hates suffering.
-
One drop of suffering outweighs a lifetime of pleasure? Nonsense. What sort of cotton-wool-wrapped philosophy is so terrified of the slightest suffering that all of the pleasure of experience: that all experience and all pleasure, ever, is outweighed by a stubbed toe?
-
A simple experiment would be to ask very many people if, on balance, they’d rather never have been born than had to sit through the suffering of life. If there’s overwhelming (or even significant) support for that, then you can see that your valuations and logic are in line with the rest of humanity. If not, then you can happily create a child that, on balance, will be happy to have been born.