Anti-Natalism and the case for human extinction

[Blalron]

In this post I will outline the reasons why creating new human beings is wrong. If everybody followed my moral philosophy, the human race would go extinct. However, I will argue that this is the most preferable outcome for humanity.

David Benatar, in Better Never To Have Been, The Harm of Coming Into Existence, makes the best case I've seen so far
against babymaking. It's a principle he called "Asymmetry."

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.

However,

(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation

Point 3 may seem ludicrous. How can something be GOOD if it's not good for someone? In support of point 3, I'll give the example of a married couple who are carriers for Tay-Sachs, a horrible heritable condition whose victims nearly always die before the age of 5 and who suffer excrutiating pain as their physical and mental faculties deterioriate. If they choose permanent sterilization rather than taking the chances of creating a Tay-Sachs baby, I think virtually everybody would declare the absent pains of the never existent child to be "good", even though that child was not conceived.

In support of point 4, we don't get particularly worked up over the trillions of possible children that did not become actual and the pleasures these possible children could have enjoyed. In order to avoid bringing in the contentious issue of abortion, I'm referring to all the possible sperm/egg combinations that did not happen. The absent pleasures in this case are "not bad."

All human lives, virtually without exception, contain some level of suffering within them. Every person who is born is destined to die, and the process of dying can often be a very unpleasant affair. Each death causes several other people to be bereaved. It follows that bringing someone into existence is always a serious harm, and this serious harm could easily be prevented. Vasectomies are only a few hundred bucks and can literally prevent lifetimes of suffering from happening.

The most immediate rejection of this viewpoint is "Why not just kill yourself then?" Suicide can be a rational response to this line of argument, and ones own personal future expected suffering would have to outweigh that to do more harm than good. Once a person is alive, attachments to that person form. A never existent person never forms any attachments and thus it's better to never be than to be and then commit suicide. Choosing to remain alive and get sterilized could very well have more utility, because it sets an example for others and might prevent even more lives from happening.

[villa]

If they choose permanent sterilization rather than taking the chances of creating a Tay-Sachs baby, I think virtually everybody would declare the absent pains of the never existent child to be "good", even though that child was not conceived.


I don't think I would. I would think it would be a "bad" were the child to be born, but just nothing if the child were not conceived. It might well be a good choice to be sterilized, but the non-birth and the non-suffering is a moral non-event for me.

[Blalron]

I don't think I would. I would think it would be a "bad" were the child to be born, but just nothing if the child were not conceived. It might well be a good choice to be sterilized, but the non-birth and the non-suffering is a moral non-event for me.

Wouldn't the avoidance of "bad" be considered "good" though?

[Marley23]

Point 3 may seem ludicrous.
Not "seems." Is. You've left the issue of probability out of this discussion entirely, so in the end, this idea doesn't bear much resemblance to reality as people experience it.

[Blalron]

Amending the last paragraph of my post... the five minute timer expired.



The most immediate rejection of this viewpoint is "Why not just kill yourself then?" Suicide can be a rational response to this line of argument, but ones own personal future expected suffering would have to outweigh the suffering caused to loved ones to make sense from a utilitarian perspective. [Amended after the 5 minute mark.] Once a person is alive, attachments to that person form. A never existent person never forms any attachments and thus it's better to never be than to be and then commit suicide. Choosing to remain alive and get sterilized could very well have more utility, because it sets an example for others and might prevent even more lives from happening.

[villa]

Wouldn't the avoidance of "bad" be considered "good" though?

Not in the way I read you as using the terms. Someone not suffering is a good thing. A person suffering is a bad thing. A person who never exists not suffering is not, as far as I can see, either good or bad.

There is also the major problem of quantifying here. Not all bads are equal, and not all bads are equivalently bad to exactly counterbalance a good...

[Indistinguishable]

Wouldn't the avoidance of "bad" be considered "good" though?
Only in the same way that the avoidance of "good" would be considered "bad". If you're trying to derive an asymmetry, you couldn't use this kind of reasoning.

[Blalron]

Not in the way I read you as using the terms. Someone not suffering is a good thing. A person suffering is a bad thing. A person who never exists not suffering is not, as far as I can see, either good or bad.

What I'm attempting to show is that while there is a duty, at least under certain circumstances, to prevent suffering people from coming into existence (if the suffering is great enough), there is NO corresponding moral duty to bring happy people into existence.

If we look at people in a distant land who are suffering, we regret their suffering. However, we don't look at uninhabited areas of the globe and feel sad for the happy people that could have existed. That's because there's an assymetry between pleasure and pain.

[Marley23]

Wouldn't the avoidance of "bad" be considered "good" though?
That's a childish outlook, or at least a reflexively timid one.

[Indistinguishable]

What I'm attempting to show is that while there is a duty, at least under certain circumstances, to prevent suffering people from coming into existence (if the suffering is great enough), there is NO corresponding moral duty to bring happy people into existence.
Are lives typically so full of suffering that we have a duty to prevent there from being any more? I suppose that is your argument, but who accepts this premise?

I mean, of course lives typically have some suffering in them, but I do not think it generally crosses this threshold.

[Indistinguishable]

In support of point 4, we don't get particularly worked up over the trillions of possible children that did not become actual and the pleasures these possible children could have enjoyed. In order to avoid bringing in the contentious issue of abortion, I'm referring to all the possible sperm/egg combinations that did not happen. The absent pleasures in this case are "not bad."
Just as much as we do not generally consider one morally deficient for failing to have a child that will experience the pleasures of life, we do not generally consider one morally deficient for having a child that will experience the typical pains of life (counterbalanced by the typical pleasures). If you're going to appeal to our usual moral practices...

[villa]

If we look at people in a distant land who are suffering, we regret their suffering. However, we don't look at uninhabited areas of the globe and feel sad for the happy people that could have existed. That's because there's an assymetry between pleasure and pain.

No, it's because it is real people suffering, and imaginary people not being happy. That's not an assymetry between pleasure and pain, it is an assymetry between people and non-people.

[Blalron]

Are lives typically so full of suffering that we have a duty to prevent there from being any more? I suppose that is your argument, but who accepts this premise?

I mean, of course lives typically have some suffering in them, but I do not think it generally crosses this threshold.

First of all, there's a psychological principle called "The Polyanna Effect" that skews people towards optimism. The overwhelming majority of people, when asked how happy they are, will say "above average". But logically speaking this can't be right. So peoples subjective sense of well being is not an accurate indicator of how well their lives actually are.

Secondly, approximately 2% of all deaths are suicides, and it's not to much of a stretch to assume that there must be even a higher percentage of people who are strongly dissatisfied with their lives but are still unwilling or unable to take their own lives. Let's say 1 in 20 lives are highly miserable. Why place "Russian Roulette" with ones own future potential offspring when the alternative (not procreating) would not be bad?

[Indistinguishable]

First of all, there's a psychological principle called "The Polyanna Effect" that skews people towards optimism. The overwhelming majority of people, when asked how happy they are, will say "above average". But logically speaking this can't be right. So peoples subjective sense of well being is not an accurate indicator of how well their lives actually are.
They might have a great sense of how their own lives actually are, and not a great sense of how humanity in general is. They realize that they themselves are happy, but what they don't realize is that most people are happy as well; they don't realize that "average" is happy. Still sounds like a pretty good world to me.

[ITR champion]

All human lives, virtually without exception, contain some level of suffering within them. Every person who is born is destined to die, and the process of dying can often be a very unpleasant affair. Each death causes several other people to be bereaved. It follows that bringing someone into existence is always a serious harm, and this serious harm could easily be prevented. Vasectomies are only a few hundred bucks and can literally prevent lifetimes of suffering from happening.
Oh, nonsense.

The argument rests on the premise that there is only "bad" and "good" without levels,and furthermore that they're determined in a way that would seem very strange to most people. In truth most of us view our lives as good, and the short times of pain as an interruption to those overall good lives. The good outweighs the bad

The presence of pain is bad.
Not always.
The presence of pleasure is good.
Not always. (Also, in his vision, is it good or bad when a person experiences pain and pleasure simultaneously.)
The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
Meaningless. Is a rock's existence therefore good? It's existence includes an absence of pain, but only because it includes an absence of anything.
[quote=The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.]
Meaningless again.

Further objections.

1. I do not suppose that measures of pain and pleasure are the only purpose of human existence. Judging a human's existence as good or bad based only on the presence of pain and pleasure would be as meaningless as judging a meal to be good or bad based only on the presence of ketchup and mustard.

2. I and many others intend to enjoy an eternal life without pain, which is notably absent from Benatar's analysis.

[Natty Bumppo]

Funny how things work out. I only recently heard of the VHEM (http://www.vhemt.org/). Then I was reading something entirely different that referred to Blake's Auguries of Innocence (http://www.artofeurope.com/blake/bla3.htm). Then, I see this thread. Weird.

Anyway, this is from the poem.

It is right it should be so;
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

And, this:

Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.
Under every grief and pine
Runs a joy with silken twine.


- William Blake

[Marley23]

The overwhelming majority of people, when asked how happy they are, will say "above average". But logically speaking this can't be right. So peoples subjective sense of well being is not an accurate indicator of how well their lives actually are.
It suggests people don't know how happy other people are, but that has no bearing on the issue of whether any individuals are happy or not.

[mswas]

I wish there were more martyrs to the anti-natalism cause, people who would put their money where their mouth is and use suicide as a political statement.

[mswas]

Pain is only bad in that it is detrimental to life, if you are arguing to kill yourself, then your cure is worse than the disease.

[mswas]

It suggests people don't know how happy other people are, but that has no bearing on the issue of whether any individuals are happy or not.

Well, there is some interesting stuff written about the imperative to be happy that might influence how people answer that.

See: Jacques Lacan, Slavoj Zizek 'Imperative to Enjoy'

[Caveat lector]

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.

First, I reject both of these premises as false if you are speaking of them as absolutes.

Physical pain, in my opinion, is, at its base, a good. Take this case here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/03/btsc.oppenheim/). The girl in question has seriously injured herself because she cannot feel pain. As we can see physical pain prevents damage and, in most cases, does no lasting harm. Now an excess of pain is bad, but then this is true for most things.

Emotional pain can also be a good. Shame and guilt can help to prevent harmful social behaviors. So can fear. Now can they be misused or felt in excess? Yes they can, but I would not want to live in a world where they are absent.

Also pleasure is not necessarily good. Pleasure can come from sources harmful for either the recipient, others, or both and, as pleasure can reinforce this behavior, pleasure, in this case, would not be a good. For example someone may gain pleasure from a harmful addiction; this pleasure would not be a good.


All human lives, virtually without exception, contain some level of suffering within them. Every person who is born is destined to die, and the process of dying can often be a very unpleasant affair. Each death causes several other people to be bereaved. It follows that bringing someone into existence is always a serious harm, and this serious harm could easily be prevented. Vasectomies are only a few hundred bucks and can literally prevent lifetimes of suffering from happening.


Second, though death is often painful I would like to see evidence the majority of times it causes overwhelming pain as, if I'm reading correctly, you seem to be implying. I'll take myself for an example here. I've had close friends die suddenly. Now this made me sad, but to say the pain was overwhelming or even especially bad would not be the case. Now I personally view death, in the current state of the world, as a good (though one to only be obtained at the appropriate time as life is also a good), maybe this makes me weird, but it is a common Catholic teaching.

Also, I don't see how something can be good or bad for something non-existent. It is not a good for me complement the non-existing person in the room with me or to refrain from hitting them. Nor is it a bad for them for me to try and hit them or to call them names (though I suppose attacking non-existent things could be a bad for me.)

[Der Trihs]

I wish there were more martyrs to the anti-natalism cause, people who would put their money where their mouth is and use suicide as a political statement.Lacking a time machine, there's no particular logical connection between opposing new people being born and suicide.

[kanicbird]

Look at societies where reproduction is controlled, are they happy free societies or oppressive places of near slavery?

The 4 points the OP is making are negatively amplified in countries where reproduction is controlled.

[Miller]

Wouldn't the avoidance of "bad" be considered "good" though?

If I were to get up right now and stab my co-worker to death, that would be bad. The fact that I am not doing that means that I must be doing good. I also have no intention of robbing a bank on my way home tonight - so I'm doubly good for not doing that. When I get home, I will not set fire to the apartment building opposite where I live - once again, a demonstrable good act. In fact, at any given moment, there are an infinite number of bad acts I could be committing, but am not - therefore, at any given moment, I'm also committing an equal number of good acts.

I must be some kind of motherfucking saint, and I'll I'm doing is sitting at my work computer, typing on the internet.

[mswas]

Lacking a time machine, there's no particular logical connection between opposing new people being born and suicide.

Well I see it as somewhat hypocritical in many of its manifestations. Obviously there are some ways in which it can be performed unhypocritically. In one of its more common forms it is enviro-extremists who view Humanity as a cancer. They of course consume massive amounts of resources due to their continued life, and expect others not to breed to make up for it, where they could make a solid choice and take matters into their own hands.

[Blalron]

Look at societies where reproduction is controlled, are they happy free societies or oppressive places of near slavery?

The 4 points the OP is making are negatively amplified in countries where reproduction is controlled.

On the other hand, in countries where birth rates are higher, I contend that few of us would want to be born there. The Congo and Afghanistan aren't exactly happy vacation spots.

In China, which I concede is not a very good place to live, you also have to factor into account the suffering that would be caused by even more people existing in that country.

[Blalron]

Well I see it as somewhat hypocritical in many of its manifestations. Obviously there are some ways in which it can be performed unhypocritically. In one of its more common forms it is enviro-extremists who view Humanity as a cancer. They of course consume massive amounts of resources due to their continued life, and expect others not to breed to make up for it, where they could make a solid choice and take matters into their own hands.

It would only be hypocritical if Anti-Natalists were actually breeding. Being an Anti-Natalist does NOT require one to be a Pro-Mortalist.

As I've argued earlier, remaining alive to preach the "Anti-Natal" gospel may prevent more lives than silencing our voices by all us killing ourselves. Of course, that's exactly what Pro-Natalists would like us to do. I'm not taking the bait. :p

[Half Man Half Wit]

Morality is a human construct, and especially so are good and bad; moral reasoning is therefore not applicable in a situation of human absence and thus cannot be used to argue in favour of creating such a situation. To put it another way, to say that the absence of humanity is good would need a standard for good to be measured against that is independent of humanity.

[Blalron]

2. I and many others intend to enjoy an eternal life without pain, which is notably absent from Benatar's analysis.

Even accepting the truth of Christianity, I think this provides an especially strong Anti-Natal argument. The avoidance of having a child grow up and then later turn away from the faith and then suffer eternally in hell would make non-procreating an especially urgent imperative.

[The Hamster King]

Morality is a human construct, and especially so are good and bad; moral reasoning is therefore not applicable in a situation of human absence and thus cannot be used to argue in favour of creating such a situation. To put it another way, to say that the absence of humanity is good would need a standard for good to be measured against that is independent of humanity.Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[mswas]

It would only be hypocritical if Anti-Natalists were actually breeding. Being an Anti-Natalist does NOT require one to be a Pro-Mortalist.

Actually it does. Particularly your argument. If you think the human race should be extinct you are a pro-mortalist.

As I've argued earlier, remaining alive to preach the "Anti-Natal" gospel may prevent more lives than silencing our voices by all us killing ourselves. Of course, that's exactly what Pro-Natalists would like us to do. I'm not taking the bait. :p

Actually you're mostly ignored and considered a nutty fringe. No one is really listening to you. If you started killing yourselves en masse and provided some sort of organized framework for a movement to keep the voice moving. That would give the movement a voice.

[mswas]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Yup, the thread is over.

[mswas]

Even accepting the truth of Christianity, I think this provides an especially strong Anti-Natal argument. The avoidance of having a child grow up and then later turn away from the faith and then suffer eternally in hell would make non-procreating an especially urgent imperative.

I believe this was the view of the Cathars.

[Marley23]

It would only be hypocritical if Anti-Natalists were actually breeding. Being an Anti-Natalist does NOT require one to be a Pro-Mortalist.
"Pro-Mortalist?" When did suicide turn into a political or philosophical position instead of an action?

[Blalron]

Morality is a human construct, and especially so are good and bad; moral reasoning is therefore not applicable in a situation of human absence and thus cannot be used to argue in favour of creating such a situation. To put it another way, to say that the absence of humanity is good would need a standard for good to be measured against that is independent of humanity.

I deny that in order to harm somebody, they need to be worse off. It's sufficient to say that an action causes badness in order for it to be bad, especially when the alternative (nonprocreation) would be viewed as "not bad".

[Blalron]

Actually you're mostly ignored and considered a nutty fringe. No one is really listening to you. If you started killing yourselves en masse and provided some sort of organized framework for a movement to keep the voice moving. That would give the movement a voice.

The anti-slavery movement was also fringe at one point in time. Being a fringe movement is not reason in and of itself to dismiss the movement.

[Blalron]

If procreation can never harm anybody (because in order to harm they need to be worse off) I think accepting that proves that procreation can never benefit anyone either, because you can't say that coming into existence would make one better off than if one had never existed. In other words, you can never create a child for that child's own sake. The motivating interest here is the parents desire to be a parent, not some desire to help some disembodied spirit howling out in the void, wishing it was born into a human body.

[Blalron]

"Pro-Mortalist?" When did suicide turn into a political or philosophical position instead of an action?

Never that I'm aware of, I was simply trying to react to the point of view that an anti-natalist has to accept that suicide is always preferable or else he's being a hypocrite.

[smiling bandit]

Bah. If I wanted humanity dead I do it myself.

[Miller]

If procreation can never harm anybody (because in order to harm they need to be worse off) I think accepting that proves that procreation can never benefit anyone either, because you can't say that coming into existence would make one better off than if one had never existed.

It doesn't prove any such thing, because the act of creating a new person has ramifications that are not restricted merely to that person. Consider this: I think I'm able to raise a child in such a manner that he will grow up to be succesful and happy. I think that I can also instill in him values that I think are important to the betterment of life on this planet. Therefore, me having a child is to the net benefit of the species as a whole.

[Blalron]

If I were to get up right now and stab my co-worker to death, that would be bad. The fact that I am not doing that means that I must be doing good. I also have no intention of robbing a bank on my way home tonight - so I'm doubly good for not doing that. When I get home, I will not set fire to the apartment building opposite where I live - once again, a demonstrable good act. In fact, at any given moment, there are an infinite number of bad acts I could be committing, but am not - therefore, at any given moment, I'm also committing an equal number of good acts.

I'm not saying we should be throwing you a ticker tape parade for not committing murders (although if the evidence showed that ticker tape parades had a real world effect on preventing people from committing murder, I'd say it might be worth looking into). We don't have to get all excited about it. What I am saying is that it's morally preferable and doing the morally preferable thing is "good."

[Pleonast]

First of all, there's a psychological principle called "The Polyanna Effect" that skews people towards optimism. The overwhelming majority of people, when asked how happy they are, will say "above average". But logically speaking this can't be right.Statistics are not that simple. Let's say we ask 100 people "How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 5 (the worst, below average, average, above average, or the best)?" and they truthfully answer: 15 say 1, 80 say 4, and 5 say 5. The average is 3.6; 85% said they were above average and they are! It can be right.

[Blalron]

Statistics are not that simple. Let's say we ask 100 people "How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 5 (the worst, below average, average, above average, or the best)?" and they truthfully answer: 15 say 1, 80 say 4, and 5 say 5. The average is 3.6; 85% said they were above average and they are! It can be right.

I suppose the surveys could have been more specific ("above the median"), but I think it's still clear that most people have an inflated opinion of themselves that's not neccesarily based on facts. I recall reading that 2/3rds of drivers thought they were better drivers than most!

[SenorBeef]

2. I and many others intend to enjoy an eternal life without pain, which is notably absent from Benatar's analysis.

If you bring the religious aspect into this (assuming a standard heaven/hell religion, which most of them are), then the OP's point is even stronger.

An existance in which significant people born will eventually suffer eternal pain has a strong moral imperative to keep people from being born and potentially suffering it. Eternal punishment and pain is so bad that it defies human comprehension. It's infinitely worse than anything we can conceive. And yet religious parents happily procreate knowing that they could end up being responsible for causing this. It's disgusting.

Depending on your views, this punishment is inflicted on a small minority of people ranging to the vast majority. It doesn't really matter - even one person suffering eternal pain is too much to be offset by any amount of good or pleasure. It trumps everything else. It is better for no one to have ever existed than for anyone to suffer that.

[Miller]

I'm not saying we should be throwing you a ticker tape parade for not committing murders (although if the evidence showed that ticker tape parades had a real world effect on preventing people from committing murder, I'd say it might be worth looking into). We don't have to get all excited about it. What I am saying is that it's morally preferable and doing the morally preferable thing is "good."

But what if, instead of stabbing my coworker to death, I just punch him once in the head? That's certainly morally preferrable to stabbing him to death. Does that make punching him "good?"

[bobthebuilder]

I think existing is better than not existing. Thus the child benefits from procreation.

Is a conceptual apple better than a real apple? no the second is superior because it is exists.

[mswas]

The anti-slavery movement was also fringe at one point in time. Being a fringe movement is not reason in and of itself to dismiss the movement.

You have the added difficulty of the fact that you can't form much of a hereditary position. I'm telling you, martyrdom is the way to get attention.

[Miller]

I suppose the surveys could have been more specific ("above the median"), but I think it's still clear that most people have an inflated opinion of themselves that's not neccesarily based on facts. I recall reading that 2/3rds of drivers thought they were better drivers than most!

You're still missing the point. Most people think they're happier than average. Statistically, this may not be possible, but it doesn't therefore follow that these people are really unhappy. Happiness isn't graded on a curve. The number of other people in the world who are happier or unhappier than me, does not effect how happy I am. Comparing happiness to driving is particularly inapt, because happiness is a purely internal state for which there is no external metric. We can measure how good a driver is by examining the number of accidents they get into, or how often they're fined for traffic violations. The only way we can measure how happy someone is, is by asking them. If most people say they're happier than average, that means that most people are, in fact, happy, and think themselves lucky to be so happy. It doesn't mean that they're really miserable, and are only fooling themselves.

[Der Trihs]

If most people say they're happier than average, that means that most people are, in fact, happy, and think themselves lucky to be so happy. It doesn't mean that they're really miserable, and are only fooling themselves.It could mean that they are lying though; saying they are happy when they aren't, perhaps because that's how they think they are supposed to feel.

[SenorBeef]

Or they may think the default state of humanity is pretty miserable, but they're less miserable than most.

[Indistinguishable]

It could mean that they are lying though; saying they are happy when they aren't, perhaps because that's how they think they are supposed to feel.
But the test has no way of determining what the respondents' actual happiness level is; it cannot possibly be taken as providing, in itself, evidence that these people are lying about their actual happiness level. It only shows that their statements about how their happiness level compares to the median are incorrect. As everyone has been pointing out, it is much more likely that the respondents are simply mistaken as to what the median happiness level is than that they are mistaken as to what their own happiness level is.

[Indistinguishable]

Somehow, edits I made to the above post got fucked up. Here's the intended version:

It could mean that they are lying though; saying they are happy when they aren't, perhaps because that's how they think they are supposed to feel.
But the test has no way of determining what the respondents' actual happiness level is; it cannot possibly be taken as providing, in itself, evidence that these people are lying about their actual happiness level. It only shows that their statements about how their happiness level compares to the median are incorrect. You present one possible explanation for this, but there are others. Regardless, in response to the OP's inference, it should be pointed out, as everyone has been pointing out, that it is much more likely that the respondents are simply mistaken as to what the median happiness level is than that they are mistaken as to what their own happiness level is.

[Little Nemo]

I'd argue with the central premise that the asymetry exists. Why assume pain and pleasure operate by different rules? If "the presence of pain is bad" and "the presence of pleasure is good" and "the absence of pain is good", why suddenly abandon the symetry that is forming? Assume "the absence of pleasure is bad" is true unless proven otherwise. People should take positive steps to create pleasure and an opportunity to create pleasure should not be forsaken. And having children, which creates the possibility of them experiencing a good life, is such an opportunity.

[mswas]

It's a very hedonistic mindset to simplify pain bad pleasure good.

[Blalron]

I'd argue with the central premise that the asymetry exists. Why assume pain and pleasure operate by different rules? If "the presence of pain is bad" and "the presence of pleasure is good" and "the absence of pain is good", why suddenly abandon the symetry that is forming?

Obviously some people are going to take the rejection of this asymmetry as a moral axiom. But the duty to avoid causing other people pain strikes me as more urgent than the duty to make people happy (or in this case, make happy people). There's also a certain intolerable threshhold of badness that can be inflicted on someone that cannot be justified, even if it makes other people happy. Even if only a minority of humans experience an intolerable amount of suffering, I'd say it's always better to err on the side of caution by not making new humans. Most of the people we create may not regret their lives, but the people we don't create definitely won't regret not being created.

[Little Nemo]

Obviously some people are going to take the rejection of anti-natalism as a moral axiom. But the duty to avoid causing other people pain strikes me as more urgent than the duty to make people happy (or in this case, make happy people). There's also a certain intolerable threshhold of badness that can be inflicted on someone that cannot be justified, even if it makes other people happy. Even if only a minority of humans experience an intolerable amount of suffering, I'd say it's always better to err on the side of caution by not making new humans. Most of the people we create may not regret their lives, but the people we don't create definitely won't regret not being created. I think you have to assume that pain and pleasure have some existence as independant qualities, otherwise the whole issue is meaningless. If pain and pleasure only exist as they are experienced by human beings, then they don't really exist at all. If I hit my thumb with a hammer today, I'm experiencing pain. But by tomorrow, the pain will be gone. If pain only exists as an experience, then it is strictly transient (as is pleasure). All pain and all pleasure inevitably become non-existent, so what point is there in discussing the moral issues of these transient sensations? Any pain you create is just going to cease to exist anyway so what's the moral cost of creating pain? If I slapped you in the face yesterday, the pain is gone now. So what moral difference is there between me having slapped you and me not having slapped you?

The only way creating pain has a moral value is if you assume that the pain you created has a moral effect that outlasts the experience of the pain itself. In other words, that pain (and pleasure) has an independant existence seperate from the person who experiences it at the time it occurs. And if that's the case, that the absense of pleasure is just as bad as the existence of pain.

[clairobscur]

I believe this was the view of the Cathars.

Not exactly. The Cathars didn't have an issue with creating new lives because the kid could someday end up in hell, but because the flesh (and more generally the world) was the creation of the evil demiurge, so you were playing in his hands by giving birth to human beings.

[ITR champion]

Even accepting the truth of Christianity, I think this provides an especially strong Anti-Natal argument. The avoidance of having a child grow up and then later turn away from the faith and then suffer eternally in hell would make non-procreating an especially urgent imperative.
That's simply the original argument repeated with the existence of Heaven and Hell added in. What do you have to claim that the avoidance of Hell outweights the achievement of Heaven? All you offer is a bit of verbal trickery, not exactly solid ground for demanding the extermination of humanity.

[Chief Pedant]

In this post I will outline the reasons why creating new human beings is wrong. If everybody followed my moral philosophy, the human race would go extinct. However, I will argue that this is the most preferable outcome for humanity.

In fairness, we should mention that the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing beat the Anti-Natalists to the punch on not procreating, even if it was for a different motivation...

Mr Benatar's case for following in the footsteps of the Shakers' proscription against reproducing rests, interestingly, on a reasonably opposite premise: Hedonism is the greatest good. Since perfect pleasure is not easily achievable, we should therefore stop creating beings unable to attain such a state.

The human race has voted with it's feet, so to speak. Within reason almost all adults who have a choice, choose life over suicide, and for the most part do so not because they have been cajoled out of suicide but because they prefer to be alive than not. It is easy to show that an existing human endures more pain than one who has never existed. The vote is already in over whether this is a greater good. Apparently it is, and therefore the notion that perfect pleasure is the greatest good is wrong.

It's fairly obvious that whatever it is that being alive offers seems to outweigh the bad stuff for most people.

Perhaps Mr Benatar should refine his position from Radical Anti-Natalism to More Easily-Effected Suicide.

[Blalron]

Perhaps Mr Benatar should refine his position from Radical Anti-Natalism to More Easily-Effected Suicide.

Benatar does admit that suicide may in fact be more rational in many cases than continuing to exist. But since the issue involves our own lives, it's a mistake we should be allowed to make.

However, you cannot contain consent from someone before you create them.

To say that it's ok to procreate on the assumption that they can simply kill themselves later ignores the fact that suicide will cause immense pain to loved ones. This places a key obstacle in the way of suicide and is kind of a "trap" for people who otherwise would have ended their lives. Potential procreators would do well to consider this.

[Der Trihs]

I think you have to assume that pain and pleasure have some existence as independant qualities, otherwise the whole issue is meaningless. If pain and pleasure only exist as they are experienced by human beings, then they don't really exist at all. If I hit my thumb with a hammer today, I'm experiencing pain. But by tomorrow, the pain will be gone. If pain only exists as an experience, then it is strictly transient (as is pleasure). All pain and all pleasure inevitably become non-existent, so what point is there in discussing the moral issues of these transient sensations? Any pain you create is just going to cease to exist anyway so what's the moral cost of creating pain? If I slapped you in the face yesterday, the pain is gone now. So what moral difference is there between me having slapped you and me not having slapped you?I don't think that 'it's transient' makes pain any less bad. Suppose someone kidnapped you, put you through agonizing torture and then erased your memory. Supposed they did this repeatedly. Would that be immoral behavior ?

As I see it, pain in itself is bad because it feels bad. Feeling bad is enough. Yes, it's a necessary evil given how we are made, but it's still an evil.

[lekatt]

Only materialists could consider such a thing possible. Spiritual people know life is eternal.

I believe people are about as happy as they want to be.

Abe Lincoln

[Blalron]

That's simply the original argument repeated with the existence of Heaven and Hell added in. What do you have to claim that the avoidance of Hell outweights the achievement of Heaven? All you offer is a bit of verbal trickery, not exactly solid ground for demanding the extermination of humanity.

If, I had a magical crystal ball that would allow me to see into the future and I knew that out of 100 hypothetical future people, 1 would go to hell and 99 to heaven, I'd still consider it preferable that these 100 people never exist in the first place. If Hell is as bad as the Bible seems to imply, nothing could justify inflicting an eternity of torment on someone. "The Worm shall not die, and the fire shall never be quenched" sounds very very VERY bad to me. In fact, I can't even add enough "verys" here because it's infinitely bad. Jesus himself said if your right arm causes you to sin, it is better to cut it off than to sin and be sent to hell. From my understanding, the ratio of people going to hell in the real world would be MUCH higher than 1%, in fact a MAJORITY of people in this world don't believe in Jesus, so it seems like most people would be going to hell.

The Christian notion of hell is actually what ultimately turned me away from the faith. I simply couldn't tolerate the notion that we have a Creator who supposedly loves us but would make people suffer forever for not believing in him, especially when there's not direct evidence he even exists. It's not like any rational person would choose Hell if they KNEW it was a reality. Why would God play this sort of game with us?

[Chief Pedant]

Benatar does admit that suicide may in fact be more rational in many cases than continuing to exist. But since the issue involves our own lives, it's a mistake we should be allowed to make.

However, you cannot contain consent from someone before you create them.

To say that it's ok to procreate on the assumption that they can simply kill themselves later ignores the fact that suicide will cause immense pain to loved ones. This places a key obstacle in the way of suicide and is kind of a "trap" for people who otherwise would have ended their lives. Potential procreators would do well to consider this.

It's true this is an obstacle, but since you are sorting of adding up net pain v net gain to arrive at a conclusion, you should admit equally that it's an obstacle to the joy of having a life to have never been born. The calculus at hand then becomes the number of folks who would end their lives against the number who would retain it. If it were the case that the majority of a given cohort of lives are miserable, you can make a strong case for that cohort to avoid procreating. If I knew the world was going to become hellishly hot in the next few years and there would be widespread misery, perhaps I should not procreate. If I know there's a good chance my child will not make it out of the ghetto, or that I can't afford decent care, or that I lived in Ceausescu's Romania, perhaps I shouldn't procreate. This is quite a different argument from proscribing all human procreation.

In many parts of the real world, death from suicide, accidental death, and death from assorted natural consequnces is seldom accompanied by sentiments on the part of the survivors that it would have been better had the person never been born. Again, the real world has voted with its feet: it's overwhelmingly better--on average--to have lived than to not have lived.

I bring up suicide because it removes the argument that one cannot eliminate one's own pain. If your argument is instead that part of the calculation should be the pain a death causes others, I suggest attending more deaths or attending more funerals. The nearly universal consensus is gratefulness for the individual's life. I believe this to be genuine for the most part, and I believe a poll inquiring whether the convenience of not having to mourn would outweigh the convenience of the individual having never lived would come down conclusively on the side of a net gain that the individual existed.

[Little Nemo]

I don't think that 'it's transient' makes pain any less bad. Suppose someone kidnapped you, put you through agonizing torture and then erased your memory. Supposed they did this repeatedly. Would that be immoral behavior ?

As I see it, pain in itself is bad because it feels bad. Feeling bad is enough. Yes, it's a necessary evil given how we are made, but it's still an evil.I was specifically refting the argument of the OP, which is based on the premise that non-existent pain is somehow different than non-existent pleasure.

[mswas]

Some people find the quest for meaning to be fulfilling and worth the pain. Ultimately they have the evolutionary advantage because they won't rationalize themselves into a genetic dead end.

I've noticed that many people are highly antagonistic to the idea that life has meaning at all.

For many of us that meaning is found in the process of family.

[Blalron]

I bring up suicide because it removes the argument that one cannot eliminate one's own pain. If your argument is instead that part of the calculation should be the pain a death causes others, I suggest attending more deaths or attending more funerals. The nearly universal consensus is gratefulness for the individual's life. I believe this to be genuine for the most part, and I believe a poll inquiring whether the convenience of not having to mourn would outweigh the convenience of the individual having never lived would come down conclusively on the side of a net gain that the individual existed.

My response is that peoples assessments of how well their lives are going is incorrect. Strong evolutionary forces have caused us to put a positive face on things, and ignore how much of our lives are actually predominated by negative mental states. I look at peoples insistance on how good their lives are the same way I look at a kidnap victim who has developed Stockhold Syndrome, or a slave who insists that that they are happy being enslaved. It's an (understandable under the circumstances) psychological defense mechanism.

Even in the course of what we would consider an ordinary day, we face hunger, thirst, and boredom (negative mental states). Our day to day strivings are just a continuous treadmill to keep negative mental states at bay.

I've found the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer to be highly influential in forming my views. His essay "On The Sufferings Of The World (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter1.html)" in particular. In his view, suffering is all that exists independently. Happiness is merely a temporary relief from negative mental states.

I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt..... It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.

This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful.

The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.

[villa]

My response is that peoples assessments of how well their lives are going is incorrect. Strong evolutionary forces have caused us to put a positive face on things, and ignore how much of our lives are actually predominated by negative mental states. I look at peoples insistance on how good their lives are the same way I look at a kidnap victim who has developed Stockhold Syndrome, or a slave who insists that that they are happy being enslaved. It's an (understandable under the circumstances) psychological defense mechanism.


I always love the idea that you know better than other people how happy they are.

[Little Nemo]

Blalron, all your arguments are subject to reversal. How do you know that they're not 180 degress off? Maybe people really are naturally happy and it's the people who think they're unhappy who are wrong.

[mswas]

I always love the idea that you know better than other people how happy they are.

Well we are assaulted with images telling us that being happy is a paramout value in our lives. There is an imperative to enjoy plastered on every commercial and billboard. When people ask, "How are you?", generally it is considered bad form to answer honestly, instead you have presupplied answers, "Doing Good, "I'm fine, how are you?", "Can't complain"

"How are you?"

"Well I've been constipated for days and my teenager daughter has turned into an unholy cunt. My wife feels guilty about it so defends her every nasty little behavior. I think that at a certain age, 'It's a phase' doesn't cut it anymore. But there we are no? How are you doing?"

[lekatt]

Well we are assaulted with images telling us that being happy is a paramout value in our lives. There is an imperative to enjoy plastered on every commercial and billboard. When people ask, "How are you?", generally it is considered bad form to answer honestly, instead you have presupplied answers, "Doing Good, "I'm fine, how are you?", "Can't complain"

"How are you?"

"Well I've been constipated for days and my teenager daughter has turned into an unholy cunt. My wife feels guilty about it so defends her every nasty little behavior. I think that at a certain age, 'It's a phase' doesn't cut it anymore. But there we are no? How are you doing?"

There is truth to what you say. We are assulted with approximately 600 pieces of advertising every day, most of it with pictures of people having fun while using whatever product is being hawked.

We have been trained to think money, fame, happiness are goals of life, but they are not. I think self-satisfaction is a better goal, living a life that is successful to you, not necessarily to others. Anyone can be self-confident, feel good about themselves and others no matter what economic conditions they live in. All we have to do is let-go of our demands on life for ourselves and others. Detachment it is sometimes called.

[Miller]

My response is that peoples assessments of how well their lives are going is incorrect.

Incidentally, your favorite flavor of ice cream is pork and brussel sprouts. Don't bother denying it: I know you're just incorrectly assessing your own emotions.

[Chief Pedant]

My response is that peoples assessments of how well their lives are going is incorrect. Strong evolutionary forces have caused us to put a positive face on things, and ignore how much of our lives are actually predominated by negative mental states. I look at peoples insistance on how good their lives are the same way I look at a kidnap victim who has developed Stockhold Syndrome, or a slave who insists that that they are happy being enslaved. It's an (understandable under the circumstances) psychological defense mechanism.

Even in the course of what we would consider an ordinary day, we face hunger, thirst, and boredom (negative mental states). Our day to day strivings are just a continuous treadmill to keep negative mental states at bay.

I've found the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer to be highly influential in forming my views. His essay "On The Sufferings Of The World (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter1.html)" in particular. In his view, suffering is all that exists independently. Happiness is merely a temporary relief from negative mental states.

Ah, I see. Instead of finding it remarkably wonderful that we can be satisfied being alive despite an assortment of negative things, in service of anti-natalism we are going to unilaterally paste weltschmerz on everyone and thus make the argument more robust that they would be better off having never been born. Nevermind their opinion.

Surely the only decent thing to do is to kill all humanity and end their suffering.

If you find such a nonsensical approach persuasive, I'm uninterested in trying to talk you out of it. Their are plenty of surly pessimists in addition to Schopenhauer up with whom you can curl to find what modicum of superficial solace you may in this wretched and unhappy world. I'm gonna go have a beer with some friends.

[msmith537]

David Benatar is apparently a tool.


(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.

However,

(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation


I don't know if there is a technical term for this, but I am basically calling it a load of bullshit disguised as a logical proof. And it is wrong.

Pain may be bad and pleasure may be good, however they are not mutually exclusive. For example, I may take pleasure in causing pain. Or some degree of pain (going to the gym for example) may be required to enjoy a greater amount of pleasure (ie not being a fatass).

Also the absense of pain or pleasure if there is no one around isn't good or bad. It isn't anything.

[msmith537]

My response is that peoples assessments of how well their lives are going is incorrect. Strong evolutionary forces have caused us to put a positive face on things, and ignore how much of our lives are actually predominated by negative mental states. I look at peoples insistance on how good their lives are the same way I look at a kidnap victim who has developed Stockhold Syndrome, or a slave who insists that that they are happy being enslaved. It's an (understandable under the circumstances) psychological defense mechanism.


That would be because most people find that whatever moments of joy and happiness they experience outways the periods of negativity between them

[ITR champion]

I've found the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer to be highly influential in forming my views. His essay "On The Sufferings Of The World (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter1.html)" in particular. In his view, suffering is all that exists independently. Happiness is merely a temporary relief from negative mental states.
I tend to agree with Chief Pedant in suggesting that Schopenhauer just needs to get out more, make some friends, drink a few beers, and learn how to have fun. While he doubtlessly has some intellectual heft, his argument doesn’t really defend pessimism, but rather just repeats the claim many times. His claims don’t stand up when you think about them:
It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.
That just is not true. Happiness and satisfaction generally occur when something positive is experienced, acquired, or achieved. His statement is completely groundless.
This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful.
Again untrue. I can think of many instances where pleasure came out of the blue, completely unanticipated.
The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.
Meaningless. I’m a human being. What does this prattling about animals have to do with me?
The best consolation in misfortune or affliction of any kind will be the thought of other people who are in a still worse plight than yourself; and this is a form of consolation open to every one.
Schopenhauer apparently feels this way himself, and I’m certainly not going to lecture him on what happens in his own mind. He has no right to project his own flaws onto the rest of the human race.
Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long.
Another unjustified statement. It’s true that most people work. (Labor is a synonym for work, so I guess he’s right about that one too.) As for worry or trouble, he can’t win those. Worry is optional; some people choose to worry and others don’t. Trouble occurs, but does not dominate our whole life long.

You get the point. Proof by repetition ad nauseum is not a valid proof technique.

[ITR champion]

My response is that peoples assessments of how well their lives are going is incorrect. Strong evolutionary forces have caused us to put a positive face on things, and ignore how much of our lives are actually predominated by negative mental states. I look at peoples insistance on how good their lives are the same way I look at a kidnap victim who has developed Stockhold Syndrome, or a slave who insists that that they are happy being enslaved. It's an (understandable under the circumstances) psychological defense mechanism.
Evolutionary forces can only affect our genes, not the content of our thoughts. Of course it's been theorized that we have genes that makes us think certain things, but extensive research has yet to actually find any of these genes.

Even in the course of what we would consider an ordinary day, we face hunger, thirst, and boredom (negative mental states). Our day to day strivings are just a continuous treadmill to keep negative mental states at bay.
Speak for yourself. In the course of an ordinary day, I do not face hunger, thirst, or boredom. Moreover, on those occasions when I do feel a little bit of gnawing appetite, it is not really an unpleasant sensation, and it enhances the experience of preparing and eating food.

As for boredom, I no longer believe in it. I can recall that in my atheist days I was often bored. Now that I am a Christian, I have learned to appreciate the marvels of God's creation everywhere and at all times. Now at times I am still sad, at times I am dejected, and sometimes I am furious, but I have never been bored since my conversion.

The bottom line, as others have said, is that you don't get to choose what other people feel. Projecting your own attitudes onto others is not sound thinking, and it never has been.

[Bryan Ekers]

Why don't the people who think humanity is better of dead lead by example?



Or am I only the one-millionth person to ask?

[mswas]

Why don't the people who think humanity is better of dead lead by example?



Or am I only the one-millionth person to ask?

Only the umpteenth person to ask. I really wish some of these radical extinctionists would setup a foundation to record suicides for the cause, they could endow it with their funds in their wills. That would get a lot of publicity.

I am all for people who don't appreciate life giving it up.

[ITR champion]

I, on the other hand, would prefer to see them growing up.

[Blalron]

Evolutionary forces can only affect our genes, not the content of our thoughts. Of course it's been theorized that we have genes that makes us think certain things, but extensive research has yet to actually find any of these genes.

I strongly suggest you read "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker. Genes have a lot more to do with it than most people would care to believe. Pinker cites several examples of amazing similiarities between identical twins separated at birth and who didn't meet until well into adulthood. For example, a preference for dipping buttered toast in coffee, and when starting to swim to walk backwards into the water.

Not to say that environment doesn't also play a role here. But it's extremely naive to say that genes play no role in behavior, given the overwhelming evidence that says that it does.

[Blalron]

Only the umpteenth person to ask. I really wish some of these radical extinctionists would setup a foundation to record suicides for the cause, they could endow it with their funds in their wills. That would get a lot of publicity.

I am all for people who don't appreciate life giving it up.

There is The Church of Euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia). One of their slogans is "Save The Planet, Kill Yourself"

[Lemur866]

Sure, genes play a role in our behavior which is why we eat sugar instead of rotting feces--because we've been programmed by evolution to believe that sugar tastes good. Of course this is a lie. We only think sugar tastes good. It really tastes horrible, and rotting feces tastes good as every scarab beetle knows.

If our genes program us to *think* we're happy fulfulling our biological imperatives of eating, fucking, caring for our children, and so on, how exactly is that different from actually being happy? Is a scarab beetle really happy rolling a ball of dung into a hole and laying it's eggs in the rotting feces? Or does it only think it's happy?

[mswas]

There is The Church of Euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia). One of their slogans is "Save The Planet, Kill Yourself"

Right but do they have an organized martyrs program?

[Thudlow Boink]

If everybody followed my moral philosophy, the human race would go extinct. However, I will argue that this is the most preferable outcome for humanity.Ah, but would it be the most preferable outcome for brontosauruses?

But, you say, brontosauruses don't exist. They haven't existed for a very long time. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not it's good for them if the human race goes extinct.

Well, if the human race were to go extinct, humanity would no longer exist either. So why would it matter whether "this would be the most preferable outcome" for human beings or brontosauruses?

[Thudlow Boink]

That aside, I (like others) disagree with the premises of the argument. Pain is always bad? What about masochists? What about people who enjoy the vicarious emotional pain of a sad or scary movie?

But perhaps my main objection is that the argument really relies on the unstated premises:
The presence of pain is the only bad, and
The presence of pleasure is the only good.

These I emphatically deny (unless you define "pain" and "pleasure" so broadly as to make them tautologies). People willingly, sometimes even eagerly, subject themselves to pain for the sake of an outcome other than pleasure that they consider good.

[Blalron]

Ah, but would it be the most preferable outcome for brontosauruses?

But, you say, brontosauruses don't exist. They haven't existed for a very long time. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not it's good for them if the human race goes extinct.

Well, if the human race were to go extinct, humanity would no longer exist either. So why would it matter whether "this would be the most preferable outcome" for human beings or brontosauruses?

You make a good point. I can't really say that it's good for humanity. I'm trying to take a more objective, universal perspective here. Nobody would be around to lament the absence of humanity.

On a long enough time line, the human race will eventually go extinct. All things considered, I think humanity dying out sooner rather than later would prevent an enormous amount of suffering. If humanity chose to gradually phase itself out within say a few hundred year time frame, that would be superior to waiting until the sun burns out and an earth packed with people suffers the horrible fait of intense climate change.

[Thudlow Boink]

On a long enough time line, the human race will eventually go extinct. All things considered, I think humanity dying out sooner rather than later would prevent an enormous amount of suffering. If humanity chose to gradually phase itself out within say a few hundred year time frame, that would be superior to waiting until the sun burns out and an earth packed with people suffers the horrible fait of intense climate change.Isn't that a bit like committing suicide at age 35 to avoid the sufferings of old age?

[Blalron]

Isn't that a bit like committing suicide at age 35 to avoid the sufferings of old age?

A little bit. But already existant people have a very strong desire to remain alive and overcoming that is going to be a stressful process, even with terminally ill people only a minority die by suicide and not by their illness.

Much easier to not even create them in the first place.

[Thudlow Boink]

But already existant people have a very strong desire to remain alive and overcoming that is going to be a stressful processIsn't that also true of already existent species?

[Bryan Ekers]

Isn't that also true of already existent species?

Clearly to minimize suffering we should kill ourselves off and sterilize Earth in the process.

[Blalron]

Isn't that also true of already existent species?

Any unhappiness of childlessness is going to pale in comparison to someone greaving over a suicide. And if we gradually reduce the human population, we can minimize the number of people who have to suffer the bad fate of the final generation.

[Bryan Ekers]

Any unhappiness of childlessness is going to pale in comparison to someone greaving over a suicide. And if we gradually reduce the human population, we can minimize the number of people who have to suffer the bad fate of the final generation.

Well, we can gradually reduce the human population by the proven method of raising everyone's standard of living to the point where women can choose the number of children they have, and many will choose to have only two, or one... or none.

[Der Trihs]

You make a good point. I can't really say that it's good for humanity. I'm trying to take a more objective, universal perspective here. Nobody would be around to lament the absence of humanity.

On a long enough time line, the human race will eventually go extinct. All things considered, I think humanity dying out sooner rather than later would prevent an enormous amount of suffering. If humanity chose to gradually phase itself out within say a few hundred year time frame, that would be superior to waiting until the sun burns out and an earth packed with people suffers the horrible fait of intense climate change.I'd prefer the human species to make something superior to ourselves, THEN die out ( preferably by becoming the superior entities in question ). Yes, the level of suffering humanity has undergone is enormous, and I couldn't justify creating humans if I'd been in charge of Earth back when we arose; but the fact is that we ARE here, and we might as well build a better replacement since we are. One that suffers and screws up much less.

[Blalron]

I'd prefer the human species to make something superior to ourselves, THEN die out ( preferably by becoming the superior entities in question ). Yes, the level of suffering humanity has undergone is enormous, and I couldn't justify creating humans if I'd been in charge of Earth back when we arose; but the fact is that we ARE here, and we might as well build a better replacement since we are. One that suffers and screws up much less.

I'd also be ok with that. But as it stands now, I can't see any justification for creating a human being. Only if a huge proportion of people were getting sterilized would I see any urgency whatsoever to make new people to make current peoples lives less miserable.

[Bryan Ekers]

I want the human race to continue just because I don't want some smug asshole to say "hur hur hur! Children of Men was, like, true, man!"

That movie sucked donkey balls.

[ITR champion]

I strongly suggest you read "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker. Genes have a lot more to do with it than most people would care to believe. Pinker cites several examples of amazing similiarities between identical twins separated at birth and who didn't meet until well into adulthood. For example, a preference for dipping buttered toast in coffee, and when starting to swim to walk backwards into the water.

Not to say that environment doesn't also play a role here. But it's extremely naive to say that genes play no role in behavior, given the overwhelming evidence that says that it does.

"If I were an identical twin, seperated from the other at birth and reunited with him many years later, I would be financially set for life. I could make a career selling my services out to those who wish to make a point in the nature vs. nurture debate, since I'd be a rare example of the only valid way to seperate the effects of environment from innate and unchangable traits." -Stephen J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man.

Gould goes on to explain that fewer than twenty real cases of the phenomenon exist. The most famous cases studies comes from British scientist Cyril Burt, but after his death it was found that Burt faked his data. Further discussion here:
http://logbase2.blogspot.com/2008/11/twin-delusions.html
The twin studies don't really prove what many wish they proved. Even if their data were valid, how does it answer the fact that we to find the butter-toast-in-coffee-gene or any other such gene?

[ITR champion]

Well we are assaulted with images telling us that being happy is a paramout value in our lives. There is an imperative to enjoy plastered on every commercial and billboard. When people ask, "How are you?", generally it is considered bad form to answer honestly, instead you have presupplied answers, "Doing Good, "I'm fine, how are you?", "Can't complain"

"How are you?"

"Well I've been constipated for days and my teenager daughter has turned into an unholy cunt. My wife feels guilty about it so defends her every nasty little behavior. I think that at a certain age, 'It's a phase' doesn't cut it anymore. But there we are no? How are you doing?"
Both these examples actually cut in the other direction. Advertising does not seek to convince us that we are happy. It seeks to convince us that we are currently unhappy, but would be happy if we bought the product. Hence the prevalence of advertising would more likely lead people to underestimate their overall level of happiness, rather than to exaggerate it.

There are social situations where we're expected to put on a show of happiness, even if it's false. Yet there are other situations where we're expected to complain even when we feel fine. In the workplace we're expected to gripe about customers, students, patients, coworkers, or bosses, and we often do so even when we actually like them. Whining about politicians, celebrities, and athletes is the norm. You get much more conversation about the world going to hell in a handbasket then about positive outlooks for the world at large. So social norms, just like advertising, would often lead people to undercount their happiness.

Overall, I feel pretty sure that people generally assess themselves as being less happy than they really are, and also underestimate the happiness of their fellow human beings.

[mswas]

Both these examples actually cut in the other direction. Advertising does not seek to convince us that we are happy. It seeks to convince us that we are currently unhappy, but would be happy if we bought the product. Hence the prevalence of advertising would more likely lead people to underestimate their overall level of happiness, rather than to exaggerate it.

The point of what I said is not that we ARE happy, but that there is an imperative to BE happy, and everything is subsumed by the pursuit of happiness.

There are social situations where we're expected to put on a show of happiness, even if it's false. Yet there are other situations where we're expected to complain even when we feel fine. In the workplace we're expected to gripe about customers, students, patients, coworkers, or bosses, and we often do so even when we actually like them. Whining about politicians, celebrities, and athletes is the norm. You get much more conversation about the world going to hell in a handbasket then about positive outlooks for the world at large. So social norms, just like advertising, would often lead people to undercount their happiness.

Perhaps.

Overall, I feel pretty sure that people generally assess themselves as being less happy than they really are, and also underestimate the happiness of their fellow human beings.

Maybe.

[Blalron]

Gould goes on to explain that fewer than twenty real cases of the phenomenon exist. The most famous cases studies comes from British scientist Cyril Burt, but after his death it was found that Burt faked his data. Further discussion here:
http://logbase2.blogspot.com/2008/11/twin-delusions.html
The twin studies don't really prove what many wish they proved. Even if their data were valid, how does it answer the fact that we to find the butter-toast-in-coffee-gene or any other such gene?

Your cite actually does acknowledge a statistical connection between anti-social behavior amonst identical twins, but tries to use an alternate explanation.

It would be much easier if there was a 100% connection here, but I'm not claiming that genes are an absolute determinant of behavior. I'm saying that genes can predisose one to certain behaviors. It's genes combined with environment.

[Blalron]

Meaningless. I’m a human being. What does this prattling about animals have to do with me?

It doesn't take too much imagination to extend his analogy to human beings. In fact, the worst horrors that humans inflict on other humans make being eaten by a lion seem tame in comparison.

Imagine something you really like. Be it gourmet food, music, sex, anything. You get a 25 year supply of it, but you have to agree to an hour of waterboarding. I bet you wouldn't make it 5 minutes before you backed out of the agreement. This is what Schopenhauer is talking about: the asymmetry of pleasure and pain. However good the best pleasures are, the worst pains are so much more horrific.

[ITR champion]

I'm don't agree with that synopsis. Sure, horrible horrors exist. But wonderful pleasures exist as well. I'd guess that people who do pessimism for a career haven't experienced the best pleasures that life has to offer, which is a pity. The pleasures still exist, though.

The broader point does not rest on comparing the worst horror to the best pleasure, however. It rests on observing that for most people, most of the time, life is pretty good. For me, today, I've not suffered any noticable pain and I don't expect I will. I've had a number of pleasures: eating, drinking, driving, working, and so forth. So on average, pleasure is beating pain.

[Little Nemo]

Imagine something you really like. Be it gourmet food, music, sex, anything. You get a 25 year supply of it, but you have to agree to an hour of waterboarding. I bet you wouldn't make it 5 minutes before you backed out of the agreement. This is what Schopenhauer is talking about: the asymmetry of pleasure and pain. However good the best pleasures are, the worst pains are so much more horrific.Your "obvious" analogy is nowhere near as obvious as you think. Lots of people willingly endure temporary suffering in order to obtain something that will make them happy. People are willing to endure pain for things as trivial as a ear piercing to as important as childbirth.

[Dung Beetle]

If our genes program us to *think* we're happy fulfulling our biological imperatives of eating, fucking, caring for our children, and so on, how exactly is that different from actually being happy? Is a scarab beetle really happy rolling a ball of dung into a hole and laying it's eggs in the rotting feces? Or does it only think it's happy?
Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it!