Briefly addressing Antinatalism (voluntary human extinction)

Ever since I lost my Christian faith at a young age

Are you related to Jim Jones?

life is a struggle for almost everyone. but i would still say overall the good outweighs the bad.

even the poorest among us have a lot to be thankful for. 

there's a lot of people born with disease, or people who come into massive problems, but those are the exception, not the rule.

as jesus said about those who are born diseased, they were allowed to be made that way... allowed, not created... so that one day, even if it's in the afterlife, when their poor condition is changed for the better

trying to make a virtual reality or otherwise escape reality is just avoiding the truth as it is. i mean i guess it's okay to have a way to escape, if it's done in a healthy way, but the truth needs accepted as the truth, otherwise a person is living a lie. i suppose the details would need to be determined on a case by case basis. 

So, the author of reality (God) chose to make these people suffer substantial more than other people, because why? He's omnipotent and omniscient, but still chooses to make these people suffer more? God could choose to have a perfectly level playing field, but doesn't choose that. What an asshole lol.

I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good

A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect).

there's instability for the average person on the globe, i'll give you that. but, the average person has evolved to have decent health until they die or get close to death, and the ones who don't have decent health are the exception. they might not live lavishly, but they have enough to survive. life is about more than lavish living. it's about gratitude, and making the best of not having everything one wants. 

our dispute the way i see it, is whether the average person on the globe has a decent life or not. it's at least gotta be good enough to think existing is better than not existing. the way you describe it, most people would be better off not being born, but the irony is that almost none of them agrees with that. life can be a struggle and still worth living, and still worth being grateful for, for the average person. 

So, the author of reality (God) chose to make these people suffer substantial more than other people, because why? He's omnipotent and omniscient, but still chooses to make these people suffer more? God could choose to have a perfectly level playing field, but doesn't choose that. What an asshole lol.

there can be purpose in struggle. there is a wise video circulating about a priest saying how God answers prayers. he asked for strength and God gave him difficult people to deal with... that develops strength. the priest asked for courage, and God gave him scary siutations that required him to develop courage. 

life is about creating our reality as a species. we're co creators. the higher purposes require us to find meaning in doubt, to live in faith... to create based on faith.  we use our free will, without having all the answers, to embrace a higher possible purpose. 

ultimately, i admit that you have formidable philosphical arguements. but it really comes down to optimism v pessimism. your arguments dont necessarily describe existence the best. it's just a way of looking at it. pessimistic, instead of optimistic. you see the glass half empty. it might not be the right way to look at it. you are being like an ingrateful teenager who doesnt get things their way, so they assume the world is unfair, instead of just figuring out that there's something to gain in not always getting things the way you would like. our desires of our flesh, v our desires of our spirit. 

bottom line, you are simply just choosing to be a pessimist, when it's possible to be an optimist, and there's good reason to think the optimists have it right. 

I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good

Do you think it's in an individual's best interest to commit suicide?

Most people don't (not even anti-natalists), so it seems to me that people tend to prefer existing to not existing.

A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect).

I don't think that's how dopamine works. A lot of food tastes better than not being hungry in the first place.

Overall, I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good. Negative affect is a prerequisite to positive affect, at least in humans (probably other sentient creatures, too). A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect). In other words, you're always going to have more instances of negative affect than positive affect.

Overall, I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good. Negative affect is a prerequisite to positive affect, at least in humans (probably other sentient creatures, too). A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect). In other words, you're always going to have more instances of negative affect than positive affect.

If I am not expecting a birthday party, and someone surprises me with one, did a negative affect precede that positive affect?

It does for humans, overall. Whilst the individual receiving the surprise did not have the preceding negative affect, the person organizing the surprise did. 

Although, you appear to be onto something.

For example, if a non-human constantly organized random surprises for humans, this could be argued as a net positive because there isn't a sentient creature to experience the negative affect involved in organizing the surprises. VR simulating surprises to humans would also fulfill this requirement, too. Albeit, if enough surprise events are given, humans may become accustomed to them and expect them, so there are diminishing returns involved. 

If it’s too late to have your own children, you can still adopt, assuming you’re able.

It does for humans, overall. Whilst the individual receiving the surprise did not have the preceding negative affect, the person organizing the surprise did. 

Why is this a necessity?

Although, you appear to be onto something.

For example, if a non-human constantly organized random surprises for humans, this could be argued as a net positive because there isn't a sentient creature to experience the negative affect involved in organizing the surprises. VR simulating surprises to humans would also fulfill this requirement, too. Albeit, if enough surprise events are given, humans may become accustomed to them and expect them, so there are diminishing returns involved. 

It doesn't just have to be "surprises." There are plenty of things that bring joy to us without a negative affect preceding it. For that matter, there are cases where the negative affect is minimal to the point non-existence. For example, when I eat dinner, I usually have yet to reach the point of noticeable hunger. I anticipate that you will argue that the net affect is still negative, but the world has gone from a zero sum game to a positive sum game in this recent era of human existence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ. It is no longer the case that what benefits me is necessarily harmful to someone else.

Organizing surprises takes planning and work, both of which generate negative affect in humans.

If the negative affect is minimal, then the positive affect is also minimal. 

However, the issue with the human condition is that we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied, so once our basic needs are met, we quickly begin to ask again 'what next?'

In other words, humans have a psychology that is designed to produce negative affect at all times. 

And being devoid of ambition, and striving not toward accomplishment, she drew satisfaction from the work in itself.

people must recognize that animals, plants, and the ecosystems that sustain them have intrinsic value

Organizing surprises takes planning and work, both of which generate negative affect in humans.

That's an assumption that isn't always true. For example, they may feel excited about surprising their friend as they work and plan. There are many situation in which work can be enjoyed, most notably, when you are passionate about something. I am passionate about math. When I do math, I feel experience a positive affect from working on it, and a positive affect from finding a solution. No need for any sort of negative affect.

If the negative affect is minimal, then the positive affect is also minimal. 

That's simply false. In my example, by the time a eat dinner, my hunger is minimal to the point of being unnoticeable, but I still enjoy my dinner to a very noticeable extent.

However, the issue with the human condition is that we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied, so once our basic needs are met, we quickly begin to ask again 'what next?'

...and being able to live a happy life despite that is a sign of good mental health, not delusion. Working hard may ironically be one of the best ways in which one can constantly experience a positive affect with relatively low negative affect. This is because not only does the result of one's labors generate a positive affect, but so does the work itself. In this way, the fact that we are never satisfied is a blessing, as it is what allows us to generate more positive affects for ourselves.

And being devoid of ambition, and striving not toward accomplishment, she drew satisfaction from the work in itself.

I felt like that was worth commenting on. It would appear that Kate Chopin also understands that work itself can generate positive affect.

We know work is a negative because people want to reach the end goal of work, not be stuck in a state of work.

You may find the completion of mathematics problems to be positive (which they are), but they are always proceeded by the negative feelings of not having them complete -- it's zero sum.

Do you enjoy it more when you are hungry? Do you enjoy it more when you are full?

Clearly, starving people feel far better when eating than someone who is full who is eating.

Therefore, the positive affect is built out of the negative affect that proceeded it.

Also, your dinner still comes at the price of work to get/make it, so there is that negative affect involved, too.

If dissatisfaction were the ideal state, then no one would be trying to escape it.

Yes, work can produce positive affect, but it's built out of negative affect. You need the negative affect to escape in order for work to become satisfying.

This is quite silly when we could simply blast people with dopamine hits that don't require the negative affect from dissatisfaction beforehand.

• Set a goal that you are passionate about.
  
• Find joy in working towards it.
  
• Complete it, and experience a feeling of accomplishment.
  
• Experience a brief period of satisfaction.
  
• Repeat.
  

We know work is a negative because people want to reach the end goal of work, not be stuck in a state of work.

This is a non-sequitur. Your premise that people only do work to reach an end goal is true, but your conclusion is false. The anticipation of and active progress towards an end goal creates a positive affect, not a negative one.

You may find the completion of mathematics problems to be positive (which they are), but they are always proceeded by the negative feelings of not having them complete -- it's zero sum.

Using this example, yes, I want to solve the problem, but I enjoy the process of solving, just as I am happy once it is done. In fact, I am happier when I have a difficult problem to work on then when I don't.

Do you enjoy it more when you are hungry? Do you enjoy it more when you are full?

Clearly, starving people feel far better when eating than someone who is full who is eating.

Therefore, the positive affect is built out of the negative affect that proceeded it.

Everything here is true, but it does not follow that the positive affect cannot be any greater than the negative affect.

Also, your dinner still comes at the price of work to get/make it, so there is that negative affect involved, too.

While I acknowledge that many people are not satisfied with their job, many enjoy their work.

If dissatisfaction were the ideal state, then no one would be trying to escape it.

I never said that it was an ideal state, but trying to escape it is likely one of the fastest routes to a miserable life, whereas if you are able to find joy in striving towards the next goal, it is possible to live a happy life.

Yes, work can produce positive affect, but it's built out of negative affect. You need the negative affect to escape in order for work to become satisfying.

I'm not sure what you mean by the negative affect "escaping."

This is quite silly when we could simply blast people with dopamine hits that don't require the negative affect from dissatisfaction beforehand.

How practical would that be? Speaking from experience: When you regularly receive an excessive amount of dopamine, you will begin to feel demotivated when it comes to actual work. Soon enough, all of that work begins to make you miserable. You wind up with three options: Continue to be miserable, stop doing the work and let your life collapse around you, or give up the dopamine hits. I chose the third option, and today I am a very a happy person.

• Benatarian asymmetry can be rejected because the absence of pleasure is bad, not 'not bad'. It's bad that a potential person doesn't exist to experience pleasure. It's true that we don't look at empty space and say, 'gee, I wish there was a human experiencing pleasure there'. However, it also true that potential parents can think of a potential child and realize that not having that child come into existence to experience pleasure is bad. It's bad when a person doesn't get to experience pleasure when someone could.
  
• The pain of childbirth experienced by the mother should also be factored into the morality of childbirth (barely anyone seems to factor this in -- thought it was worth a mention)
  
• The 'optimism bias' argument antinatalists like to run is actually a benefit for pronatalism. If people are delusional about how good their life is (i.e. optimistically biased), and that delusional doesn't have any real world impacts (when would you be punished for liking your life too much?), then it's actually good that people are delusional about how good their lives are because they feel better than they would otherwise.
  
• Life could be unimaginably good in the future through transhumanism/virtual reality/posthumanism/augmented reality etc. It's possible that technology like wireheads or Robert Nozick's experience machine make life so enjoyable, whilst reducing negative affect by circumventing natural human biology, that life indisputably becomes worth living for everyone. The moral issue is that in the meantime, if antinatalism is correct, we're sacrificing the lives of current humans in order to reach this unimaginable good -- that's morally problematic
  
• People rarely think about their children as old adults getting ravaged by cancer and watching all their friends die. Old age is pretty brutal and that needs to be factored in