Huh?? Souls aren’t required. Hell, humans aren’t required. I have no idea where you are reading that into what I wrote. 
-XT
It seems to me that the OP is working with some kind of equation like
Bad= Y*Good, where Y is some number greater than 0.
In other words, Good and Bad aren’t balanced; it takes Y “Good things” to even out just one “Bad thing.” That may be true, but it is just an assumption.
Well, it’s more than an assumption. It’s pretty well documented in the psychology literature that humans have a negativity bias. Just look up that phrase in Google Scholar and you’ll get lots of hits (about 2500 at last count). Basically, it’s the equation above. Bad outweighs good. One of the famous examples is the following
Imagine a cockroach crawling across a piece of cheesecake. Does that make the cockroach more appealing, or the cheesecake more unappealing?
And something condescendingly Pit-worthy to you too, pal.
I don’t know, I’m not most people. I’m just me, cannot experience existence through other lenses than mine and thus can only rely on my own feelings to form my opinions. Considering a sprog of mine would likely be more like me than like “most people”, you’re just reinforcing the notion that I shouldn’t have kids on ethical grounds ;).
Nor do I feel soul-crushing depression (at least it’s been quite a while. Thankfully, you only Love once). I’m just being objective here - life’s simply more boring than not, especially on Mondays. Whether the pleasure is worth the meh and the pain is up to the individual, the time and the place.
Life’s happy with happy pills, hurray for life \o/.
As for my job, there’s no problem with it. I like it, in a not-hating-every-second-of-it sort of way. I sometimes wish I could do it in a different setting/context, or that it could put more money in my pocket, but frankly I’m doing great on that front as it is.
I’m just saying, if people could get away with not working a day in their life and spend every waking hour fooling, fucking and eating, they would. I don’t think that’s such a controversial observation.
Waking up on time, commuting, taking orders, dealing with [del]idiots[/del]clients and co-workers, stressing over deadlines, doing overtime, getting distracted from things you’d like to do, or simply spending time away from those you love - all work is thus, by the very nature of work. Work is not something you do for enjoyment, and even things you like to do for yourself lose their appeal when you’re forced to do them.
Least that’s my opinion - I know there’re workaholics out there, my Mom is one. It’s the ultimate perversion if you ask me 
That and a dollar will buy me a big fuzzy Big Mac :p.
I think I disagree with all three points here. First, I love sleeping. Lying down and enjoying rest after a day’s work is very rewarding, not to mention the lovely time spent dozing on and off in the morning before I actually get up. And naps! I love naps. Time spent dreaming is a net plus too. So I’d count sleep as a plus in my life, not a neutral.
Second, I enjoy my job. I don’t always enjoy all parts of it, but on the whole I find my work rewarding and productive. It’s not always a drag, and I would continue to do it even if it were not financially necessary. I also don’t work every day; I have days off.
Third, I enjoy the time I spend not working and not sleeping. I read, I spend time with friends, I eat… It’s enjoyable.
You want to Pit me because I say my life is good and I think it’s worth living? And I hope for you to feel the same? Go right ahead.
Also, what appleciders said, almost word for word.
The OP is right.
How many Dopers have denigrated God by attributing to Him/Her/It the suffering and pain and injustice that exists in this world and then saying, “Why WOULD ANY LOVING PERSON INFLICT THIS ON A SENTIENT BEING?”
Well…what man and women, wanting a child, being thrilled by the ‘hope’ of a child, thinks to themselves: Uh, oh, oh, wait now…this child may be born with many of a myriad of deficits. Not be pretty. Not be smart. Will be teased and tortured by classmates. Will get any of a potpuri of childhood illnesses. Aches and pains. Be thwarted in love. Live in poverty. Be a person who will break the law or social conventions that will leave them ostrisizied.
Fall down and get scratches or broken legs or arms or fingers. Cry because Grandparents die.
Come on!
When we DECIDE to have children, ALL of these things are possibilities…and yet, we decide to have children anyway.
Why… to LOVE THEM. Because we love one another.
DESPITE the fact that we KNOW are children are going to SUFFER.
Does that make us ghouls? Evil?
The “Anti Natalists” are right: the only way to keep harm and evil and violence and lack and want and bad Governments and war and Bad Parenting away from the innocence of children is NEVER TO HAVE CHILDREN AT ALL.
But…LOVE keeps seeming to ‘TRUMP’ all of these things.
The idea that we can keep OUR child from these ravages.
So…children keep getting born from the loins of even thoughtful, educated, savy males and females.
Emotion. Love. TRUMPS reality.
Quit giving God such a hard time.
He/She/It/Whatever/Whomever’ …every human being who rails against the evil of God for the suffering of mankind is to blame themselves…for bringing human beings into this world whom they KNOW will suffer.
Ask yourselves: Why is MY decision to have a baby and therefore subject this life to all of the suffering in this World, different from God’s desire to ‘birth’ a person and ‘know’ a person and hope that joy and happiness and peace is as much a possibility as any other for that child?
Hypocrites.
I don’t think we need to cause the extinction of the human race directly, but by imposing breeding limits we can shrink the population to a managable size.
I don’t think that having kids is inherently moral or immoral and just because we die is no reason not to live, but most of the problems that we currently have in the world today are due to the fact that there are just too many people.
See theOPT website and follow the links to the graphs of population growth and use of resources.
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but I have a couple of points to make regarding people. If we accept that manmade global warming is real, and I do, then the logical thing to do is limit the amount of people. We can limit the amount of carbon an individual uses, but even a small amount multiplied by 6.8billion is a large amount. If we had a significantly smaller population we could all drive Range Rovers and there would not be a problem.
Stephen Hawking recently said that mankind must colonise spaceor die out. This is probably true, but I have to consider the question, would it be better if we did die out?
Weighing all of the good stuff; science, art, literature, good deeds, against the bad; ignorance, stupidity, religion and the terrorism it brings, wars, politics, corporations strip mining the planet, I have to say that I think we should stay at home and die out rather than inflicting all that on the universe and whom/what ever we may share it with.
So, with hindslght maybe I should change my argument to it is ethical to not have kids as it reduces the population and brings humanity a step closer to extinction which is probably, on balance, better for the universe as a whole.
BTW, for the record I am obviously hypocritical about this as I have two kids, but have developed my more misanthropic views more recently.
Nope. I could care less about your happiness. I don’t expect anyone to espouse my views, especially if what you say is true and most people honestly feel life is just peachy keen. More power to them, the world is theirs. They’ll even get my stuff when I shuffle off this mortal pyjama.
But you can shove your pity, your fake compassion and your real condescension where the sun don’t shine.
I meant the unconscious part of sleeping doesn’t count :). The going to sleep and lazing around are indeed awesome, but to me they’re part of the metaphorical last 8 hours. As are insomnia and rude awakenings. Balance in all things.
I’ll take your word on the dreaming - I very rarely do myself, or remember I did which amounts to the same thing. I don’t know that I’d call dream memories particularly pleasant (or unpleasant) though. They’re… there, I guess 
Truly you and I are different beasts :). Out of curiosity, what do you do ?
I agree - there’re lots of little things in life that make it pleasant. I enjoy them as much as the next bloke. But then I get to do my taxes, or it’s laundry day, gotta pick up the groceries, gotta do the dishes, repair the computer, clean the apartment, my back’ll start aching… and then the thought hits me that there ain’t gonna be more episodes of Firefly ever again. And you want I should be fine with that ?!
So yeah, passing time in various ways is indeed enjoyable - but that’s just that, passing time. Do you think an unborn, virgin consciousness would jump with glee if you told it “Whelp, you’re going to have to deal with disillusion, rejection, violence, remorse or regrets, lack of purpose, Kafkaian absurdity and growing old - but hey, you can read Gaiman and have a pint with the fellas !” ?
Well, maybe it would at that. You know babies - zero attention span. But to me, right now, that’s not enough. Ask me again in a month, or six months ago, and maybe I’ll even agree that they make life worth livin’, twice ! 
Which would of course be a cue for The Suck to rear its head again, because it too has a sense of humour.
Not to pick on you or single you out, Kobal2, but it sounds like your problem is that your life isn’t about anything in particular. You’re not living for anything. Whether a life is worth living doesn’t ultimately depend on whether the pleasure outweighs the pain, or on whether it contains more fun experiences than bummers. It depends on whether the life has a meaning or purpose or mission.
And, for quite a few people, a significant part of their meaning in life comes from having kids, and loving them and raising them to be good and happy and healthy human beings.
No worries. And yes, that is certainly a part of it.
True, but :
a) it’s a vicious circle, isn’t it ? I don’t have a purpose, so I spawn to get myself one. My kids don’t have a purpose, so they multiply. It never ends ! Before you know it, the entire galaxy is filled with sad sacks who *still *haven’t figured out what they were supposed to do ! :eek:
b) wouldn’t it be utterly selfish (and thereby unethical) to create a conscious being just to fill one’s own personal voids ? In my mind, having kids isn’t about you, it’s 100% about the tykes. I’d like to think only people who are already absolutely convinced even an average life is formidable would breed. Seems cruel to me to introduce someone new to the big tragicomedy just on the off chance they might enjoy it somehow. And don’t get me started on the whole “my kids will do what I couldn’t/have what I didn’t” thing - that’s just seven shades of wrong.
IOW, finding meaning takes precedence over having children. Once you’ve got the full meaning, then you sprog to spread it around. Not that they’ll listen, the ungrateful little…
Wow, I almost never post here, but I am SO GLAD I saw this topic! I don’t know that I have much to contribute, other than to say thank you for bringing it up. I completely agree with the “antinatalist” viewpoint and assumed I must be the only person on earth to think this way. I had no idea there was even a word for it.
It seems blatantly obvious to me that experiencing the good parts of life isn’t worth having to deal with the bad parts, and that life is a bad thing overall. But this just isn’t an opinion you can express in polite company without being seen as crazy.
This is something that’s always confused me about Buddhism. If you truly believe that “Life is suffering”, how could you possibly force another person to live?
Because the alternative (nonexistance) is worse.
Because Buddhists also believe that you can escape from suffering, and truly live. Since the reason why life is suffering is “craving”, seeking death or release in non-existence is also “craving” and will also lead to suffering.
“Life is suffering” is (sort of) the first of the four Noble Truths.
That’s why I say - this topic appeals to people who believe in the First Noble Truth, but who have ignored, or never heard of, the other three!
Though I’m not a Buddhist, this thread is a perfect example of the sort of thing the Buddhists were talking about.
How would you, or anyone, know ? You ever nonexisted ? 
ETA
@**Malthus **: Buddhism doesn’t appeal to me much either. All right, I don’t know all too much about it, but if I’m not mistaken, the gist of it is to reach a state where you neither want nor need anything. Which, to me, is akin to being an empty vessel. At peace, perhaps, but at the cost of, well, living. How is buddhahood different from apathy with an altruistic twist ?
Explain to me, using logic and common sense, how love isn’t real.
Love is part of reality; your denying its existence completely throws your cost/benefit analysis into the trash heap. The joy and wonder experienced by love is a critical part, possibly the greatest part, of a human being’s happiness. It’s unquestionably a real thing, as evidenced by the fact that it’s the moving force behind so much behavior.
There’s no such thing as God, so this point’s not relevant.
If it fact you really believed this, you’d have killed yourself long ago. Since you did not (for which I am glad), I frankly don’t believe the sincerity of your claim. In actual fact, you seem to think your living is a good thing.
Talk is cheap. A person’s actions demonstrate where their values really are.
This is just absurd. It’s ludicrous. The universe is not better or worse off for having human beings in it. Aside from the fact that 99.999999999999% (or some figure like that) of the universe will never have human beings in it, how is “the universe” worse off with or without people? It was no better or worse a place a billion years ago before there were humans and it will be no better or worse a place a billion or so years from now when there won’t be any humans. “Better” and “Worse” are value judgments created by human beings; the universe doesn’t think of things as "Better or “Worse.” The universe is the sum total of space, time and matter. It doesn’t care how the matter is arranged.
Ignoring chemical reactions for a while (because pure materialism depresses even me), how can anyone argue that love, that is to say utter devotion to another human being, not be self-delusion to some extent ? Who really deserves the kind of pedestals true love erects ? And don’t give me shite about crystallization or unreal expectations - the person(s) you love necessarily stands, to you, above all others by virtue of… something. Could anyone ever argue that something is objective ? Or rational ?
If anything, lurking guest is arguing the opposite (inasmuch as gibberish counts as argument :p) : the guy or gal you love is, in reality, no better or worse than tens of thousands of guys (or gals) you’ll run across during your existence. But you love THEM, and just them. Why ? Because they’re them. Ergo, emotion trumps reality.
Just because something is subjective and irrational, doesn’t make it unreal. Reality’s wholly subjective anyway :).
See post #16
I see solipsism and pointless navel-gazing are still alive and well on the Dope. Good to know.
On the contrary - I see fertile ground here for deciding that one is ethically obligated to slaughter all humanity. That would by any analysis be an ambitious and active project if undertaken.
I guess I don’t understand the other three noble truths, because it seems to me that hardly anyone would be able to completely (or even mostly?) eliminate suffering, especially the suffering associated with serious physical ailments and aging. For example, suppose your offspring gets cancer. Is it realistic to think they’ll be able to eliminate the physical pain & mental anguish of that disease by no longer craving to be cancer-free? Perhaps if you’ve trained them from birth to be a Buddhist monk, but I don’t think most Buddhists do that.
Personally, I’d happily trade away the joys of life for a guarantee that I’d never have to undergo that type of suffering. I guess this is another way of saying, I’d be fine with never having been born. I’m sure others will feel differently.
I suppose some will say it is and some will say it’s not. But it exists beyond any doubt or question.
Saying “life isn’t worth it because love is imaginary/self-delusion” is no more logical than me saying “life is worth it because sadness is imaginary/self-delusion.” You don’t get to dismiss real things because they’re inconvenient to your position.
“Objective” and “Rational” don’t, in this context, mean what you think they do. Love may not be “objective,” but why must only objective things be added to the positive side of the ledger? So subjective things add happiness. So what? Fact is, they make people happy.
Well, I’d argue they are significantly different in that they’re the one you LOVE, not the other folks (and it’s interesting that people seem to assume the default type of love is romantic.)
But that said, again, you’re arguing from a position that makes no sense. “Emotion” cannot trump “Reality.” Emotion IS A PART OF REALITY. Emotions are not separated from the universe, or reality, or what we are as living creatures; it’s a central part of what we are. If you’re going to dismiss positive emotions, you’d also need to dismiss all the negative ones, too, but in any event you can’t dismiss them. Love, anger, happiness, sadness, joy and suffering are real things.