Antinatalism is theoretically correct

Moreover, it is possible for a person to meet progression often, and even if not often, still occasionally, and even if occasionally, it means that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Your claim is that negativity is always a predecessor of positivity and above you say what if a person makes no progression that is a form of negativity. I would agree it is a form of negativity to make no progression, but I would also say what if they do make progression and therefore negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Therefore, I can prove that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity.

We agree that "it is a form of negativity to make no progression". Having not achieved any progress always comes before achieving progress. Achieving progress is not guaranteed, but entering a state of having yet achieved progress is. Therefore, negativity is always a predecessor of positivity.

This would be true; however, you make one mistake. Making no progression is only a negative if you put effort into it. An individual who puts no effort into something will make no progress and so no progress is always a predecessor of progress but it's not negative if you didn't put effort into nothing. On the contrary if an individual puts effort into progress there is quite a chance that they will make progress. Therefore, it is possible to experience positivity without the predecessor of negativity.

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?

Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).

This is a different example as it uses an individual who is already born, and you are gambling with the money so I'm not sure whether my example or your example correlates to the example of bringing someone's life into existence. However, if the money was given to me, I suppose I would not want the money to be gambled but I would also keep in mind that this was not rightfully my money to begin with rather it was a gift. It's wrong to take a gift back once you have given it, But I still don't see a clear relation between your example and bringing someone into existence.

Nonetheless we are still basing it upon the child's consent and by never bringing that child into existence they don't have much to say against being brought into existence. Therefore, the child can say nothing until it has existed about its will to be non-existent.

It is a different example, but it's about a person yet to be born (who we can guess will be born), and that's the reason I changed it (it's more similar than my original example because it talks about someone yet to be born, rather than someone already born).

The analogy here is that, without the future person's permission, you're gambling with his/her money (analogous to his/her quality of life).

Money gifted to you is your money, otherwise it's a loan. There's no expectation for the money to be paid back. Analogously, your quality of life is your own, and in both scenarios this analogy sets up, both are gambled with without consent.

We know that the child can't currently say anything, but are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their money gambled with like that, all without their permission? Similarly, if life is overall a negative experience, are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their quality of life gambled with like that, all without their permission?

I suppose it all comes down to whether life is more negative than positive.

Therefore, morals were created to allow a society to thrive. My argument is that because morals were created for society to thrive then by using morals to destroy society would be the opposite of their intended purpose. This is why I claimed that you were using a tool for the opposition of its intended purpose. Therefore, I don't believe it's correct to use morals in such a way.

I still want to discuss with you whether life is more negative than positive and if it truly is harmful to individuals to bring them into existence but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that by using morality in this way it is an incorrect use of its purpose upon creation.

Hypothetically, if a thriving, civil society was built upon the literal torture of all of its citizens, would that be morally permissible?

I would say not, I believe it would be dependent on whether life is torture. If life is overall more negative than positive, then I would agree with you that it is considered torture and that without consent a person should not be brought into a life that is more negative than positive.

I would like to focus on your proof about life being more negative than positive. As I understand it, the view of the world is subjective and varying among the individual and therefore we have no definitive answer for whether life is more negative or positive.

Hunger and thirst are not accurate ways of depicting a neutral state because our bodies naturally digest and dissolve what's inside, therefore, we are constantly moving towards the negative state within and therefore it is necessary to eat.

I agree that hunger and thirst are not neutral states -- that's my point. The goal to eat or drink is inherently built upon negative affect, of which is bad.

I disagree, the reason being is I have gone to a holiday meal at a friend's house before. We went there for dinner and so we had a small lunch and I'll tell you that it was one of the best meals mainly because I was so hungry. The feeling of hunger wasn't dreadful or unbearable.

I was hungry, but it wasn't quite negative, I would do it again if we had such a delicious big meal to have for dinner.

What I'm trying to say is that it is our hunger that allows us to enjoy food. Therefore I don't believe that hunger itself is a negative but rather the absence of food which is a basic necessity of life. As I've said before anything below the basic necessity of life is considered negative having the basic necessities of life is neutral and having an abundance or surplus of the basic necessities of life is a positive and those very dependent on an individual's perspective.

On the other hand, not having anything does not continue to make us have less and less in the sense that our stomach would, this is why it is not an accurate depiction.

It does continue to make us have "less and less" because failing to have goals complete is inherently negative (brings negative affect that ranges from slight annoyance, to irritation, to frustration, to depression), even if to a far lesser degree than being hungry or thirsty. People aren't in a neutral state when they fail to attain their goal of making it into Harvard. People aren't in a neutral state when after several years, their investments on the stock market fail to rise at all (assuming their goal is to make money).

This would depend on the person's perspective. Personally, I would be disappointed if I had invested my life savings into the stock market and it had not risen after many years. However, given the current situation with the stock market I would be glad if my stocks hadn't risen at all, as long as they didn't go down, I'd be glad. It depends on a person's perspective.

I believe that there are three states of being consisting of negative, neutral, and positive; It is quite similar to the laws of electrical engineering. A person moves from the negative to the neutral because they dislike the negative circumstance, they can also move from the neutral to the positive because they like the positive.

I think what you're saying about the moving from neutral to positive could be theoretically correct, it's just never correct in regards to goals. 

Relating to goals, if a person puts no work into their goal, I do not believe they should be disappointed they have not achieved it, but I also believe that they should not be glad they have not achieved it. This is because nothing has been put in, and nothing has been given, I consider this a neutral state. Would you agree?

If a person puts effort into their goal and they moved nowhere, I consider this a negative.

If a person puts effort into their goal and they moved closer to their goal regardless of the distance, I consider this a positive.

An example would be having enough money to make a means of living in a decent house to that person's standards. A neutral state would be having the basic necessities of life which are subjective to the individual so keep that in mind.

I would even question whether there is a true neutral in this because once all the basic necessities are met, boredom and self-actualization become the problems.

It is definitely a possibility, but not a certainty. It would depend on the individual's mentality.

It poses the question:

Is it morally right to produce unnecessary people.

Our moral obligation may not necessarily be to each other.

Moreover, it is possible for a person to meet progression often, and even if not often, still occasionally, and even if occasionally, it means that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Your claim is that negativity is always a predecessor of positivity and above you say what if a person makes no progression that is a form of negativity. I would agree it is a form of negativity to make no progression, but I would also say what if they do make progression and therefore negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Therefore, I can prove that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity.

We agree that "it is a form of negativity to make no progression". Having not achieved any progress always comes before achieving progress. Achieving progress is not guaranteed, but entering a state of having yet achieved progress is. Therefore, negativity is always a predecessor of positivity.

This would be true; however, you make one mistake. Making no progression is only a negative if you put effort into it. An individual who puts no effort into something will make no progress and so no progress is always a predecessor of progress but it's not negative if you didn't put effort into nothing. On the contrary if an individual puts effort into progress there is quite a chance that they will make progress. Therefore, it is possible to experience positivity without the predecessor of negativity.

I don't think it's possible to put absolutely no effort into progression towards goals. Even momentarily thinking about the goal is a tiny slither of effort. Even if it were possible for progress to be made without any effort, you're not going to make it through life without putting any effort in. Keep in mind that this is different from the colloquial 'I put no effort in', of which actually means very little effort.

Your "contrary" ignores the state before any progress can be made, wherein no progress is made but progress is wanted (a state with negative affect). It can sometimes be experienced very quickly and not be potent at all, but the negative affect beforehand is still there.

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?

Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).

This is a different example as it uses an individual who is already born, and you are gambling with the money so I'm not sure whether my example or your example correlates to the example of bringing someone's life into existence. However, if the money was given to me, I suppose I would not want the money to be gambled but I would also keep in mind that this was not rightfully my money to begin with rather it was a gift. It's wrong to take a gift back once you have given it, But I still don't see a clear relation between your example and bringing someone into existence.

Nonetheless we are still basing it upon the child's consent and by never bringing that child into existence they don't have much to say against being brought into existence. Therefore, the child can say nothing until it has existed about its will to be non-existent.

It is a different example, but it's about a person yet to be born (who we can guess will be born), and that's the reason I changed it (it's more similar than my original example because it talks about someone yet to be born, rather than someone already born).

The analogy here is that, without the future person's permission, you're gambling with his/her money (analogous to his/her quality of life).

Money gifted to you is your money, otherwise it's a loan. There's no expectation for the money to be paid back. Analogously, your quality of life is your own, and in both scenarios this analogy sets up, both are gambled with without consent.

We know that the child can't currently say anything, but are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their money gambled with like that, all without their permission? Similarly, if life is overall a negative experience, are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their quality of life gambled with like that, all without their permission?

I suppose it all comes down to whether life is more negative than positive.

I still think the unconsented imposition of life is still an issue, unless life is guaranteed to be enjoyable for everyone.

There's always a risk that you condemn someone to a truly horrible experience, totally without any consent.

Of course, whether life is more negative than positive will severely affect the impact of the lack-of-consent argument, but it's still a moral dilemma that has some inherent weight. 

Therefore, morals were created to allow a society to thrive. My argument is that because morals were created for society to thrive then by using morals to destroy society would be the opposite of their intended purpose. This is why I claimed that you were using a tool for the opposition of its intended purpose. Therefore, I don't believe it's correct to use morals in such a way.

I still want to discuss with you whether life is more negative than positive and if it truly is harmful to individuals to bring them into existence but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that by using morality in this way it is an incorrect use of its purpose upon creation.

Hypothetically, if a thriving, civil society was built upon the literal torture of all of its citizens, would that be morally permissible?

I would say not, I believe it would be dependent on whether life is torture. If life is overall more negative than positive, then I would agree with you that it is considered torture and that without consent a person should not be brought into a life that is more negative than positive.

Okay, so it seems you're agreeing that we can have morality without a 'civil society at all cost' mentality.

I would like to focus on your proof about life being more negative than positive. As I understand it, the view of the world is subjective and varying among the individual and therefore we have no definitive answer for whether life is more negative or positive.

It's subjective but it varies within a range. For example, we don't have people who experience a continual dopamine hit throughout their entire lives -- that's not within the range.

I think there is a definitive answer out there, but I don't think we currently have the tools necessary to determine the exact amount. Albeit, I think we can estimate to a good degree roughly how much the average person experiences negative affect versus positive affect. I suppose 1b could be fleshed out to include other estimate proofs, such as the worst negatives being more impactful than the best positives, and maybe a more detailed estimate of the qualitative affect experienced by the average life. It's why I labelled the thread "antinatalism is theoretically correct" -- there's a really good chance the stance is correct.

Hunger and thirst are not accurate ways of depicting a neutral state because our bodies naturally digest and dissolve what's inside, therefore, we are constantly moving towards the negative state within and therefore it is necessary to eat.

I agree that hunger and thirst are not neutral states -- that's my point. The goal to eat or drink is inherently built upon negative affect, of which is bad.

I disagree, the reason being is I have gone to a holiday meal at a friend's house before. We went there for dinner and so we had a small lunch and I'll tell you that it was one of the best meals mainly because I was so hungry. The feeling of hunger wasn't dreadful or unbearable.

Negative affect states don't have to be as extreme as "dreadful" or "unbearable". Even a slight irritation should be considered negative affect.

I was hungry, but it wasn't quite negative, I would do it again if we had such a delicious big meal to have for dinner.

If hunger produced positive affect, we wouldn't be urged to eat when we enter it.

It's fine to say that you weren't starving, and therefore the negative affect wasn't that bad, but everyone wants to escape hunger.

What I'm trying to say is that it is our hunger that allows us to enjoy food. Therefore, I don't believe that hunger itself is a negative but rather the absence of food which is a basic necessity of life. As I've said before anything below the basic necessity of life is considered negative having the basic necessities of life is neutral and having an abundance or surplus of the basic necessities of life is a positive and those very dependent on an individual's perspective.

I'm not basing my argument about whether something is "positive" or "negative". I'm talking about whether the affect (i.e. feelings, emotions, whatever you want to call it) is negative or positive. I'm talking specifically about affect because my argument is grounded in it (negative affect is bad; positive affect is good).

I would propose that:

There is no global standard of morality, which would suggest that morality as in tribal sensibilities developed variously and separately over time.

We see all too clearly everyday, tribal moral discrimination and global disunity on a global scale.

Even within our own national sub-cultures, their is a willingness to forego what might be regarded as national moral expectations.

Nope, I wouldn't agree that morality was created.

I would say that morality evolved, similarly but variously.

On the other hand, not having anything does not continue to make us have less and less in the sense that our stomach would, this is why it is not an accurate depiction.

It does continue to make us have "less and less" because failing to have goals complete is inherently negative (brings negative affect that ranges from slight annoyance, to irritation, to frustration, to depression), even if to a far lesser degree than being hungry or thirsty. People aren't in a neutral state when they fail to attain their goal of making it into Harvard. People aren't in a neutral state when after several years, their investments on the stock market fail to rise at all (assuming their goal is to make money).

This would depend on the person's perspective. Personally, I would be disappointed if I had invested my life savings into the stock market and it had not risen after many years. However, given the current situation with the stock market I would be glad if my stocks hadn't risen at all, as long as they didn't go down, I'd be glad. It depends on a person's perspective.

The specific time in the market doesn't matter, so let's blow that out to a full market cycle (7-10 years), wherein you'd expect your portfolio to do better.

Let's just assume, for sake of argument, that there isn't a 7-10 year long Great Depression.

Would seeing that your portfolio hasn't changed value in 7-10 years (i.e. made no progress) bring any kind of negative affect?

At some point, your perspective gets engulfed by reality, regardless of how positive you try to be.

I believe that there are three states of being consisting of negative, neutral, and positive; It is quite similar to the laws of electrical engineering. A person moves from the negative to the neutral because they dislike the negative circumstance, they can also move from the neutral to the positive because they like the positive.

I think what you're saying about the moving from neutral to positive could be theoretically correct, it's just never correct in regards to goals. 

Relating to goals, if a person puts no work into their goal, I do not believe they should be disappointed they have not achieved it, but I also believe that they should not be glad they have not achieved it. This is because nothing has been put in, and nothing has been given, I consider this a neutral state. Would you agree?

No, because people don't make goals in order to not achieve them. People make goals in order to, in their eyes, improve their life. When people realize that they're not improving their lives, or when they experience real world repercussions for not achieving their goal, more negative affect is produced.

Being in a state with unfulfilled goals produces negative affect, however small it is.

An example would be having enough money to make a means of living in a decent house to that person's standards. A neutral state would be having the basic necessities of life which are subjective to the individual so keep that in mind.

I would even question whether there is a true neutral in this because once all the basic necessities are met, boredom and self-actualization become the problems.

It is definitely a possibility, but not a certainty. It would depend on the individual's mentality.

Is boredom not inherently producing negative affect, regardless of your mentality? 

As for self-actualization, that would be subject to the general 'negative affect before positive affect' argument a1 that I've argued, so I don't think I could provide anything else to this part.

A negative state would be having an absence of what would be considered neutral and people dislike this because it is negative. Meanwhile people are more than happy to have an abundance surpassing the basic necessities because that is a positive. They are not trying to have an abundance because they dislike having the basic necessities, they are grateful for the basic necessities. It would make no sense to consider the neutral state of having the basic necessities as a negative. Rather having an absence of the basic necessities is negative and dislikable, while having the basic necessities is acceptable and a neutral state, while having an abundance surpassing the basic necessities is a positive and more desirable than having a neutral state of the basic necessities. The point here is that having the basic necessities or a neutral state is not a negative, people are grateful to have the basic necessities which is a neutral state of being, but they are drawn towards an abundance or positive state, not out of dislike from the neutral, but out of desire for the surplus.

If people want more than the basic necessities, then they've reentered a negative state because they've decided what they have isn't enough. They've adapted/become accustomed to their material state, no doubt experienced some degree of boredom, and then attempted to leave this negative state by acquiring more. 

If people were truly neutral about their existence in your scenario, they would be fine in living with basic necessities satisfied, and thus wouldn't seek more.

Again, I do not believe this is a dislike for what they have but rather a desire to have more.

They do not dislike what they have, they are glad to have the basic necessities of life including lack of hunger, fresh water, a roof over their head, etc. It is not that they are discontented that they have a house or that they dislike they have fresh water, it is that they are drawn to have more because it is a positive. Therefore, I don't believe having water is considered a negative state but rather a neutral one.

Never being satisfied is a complex idea, someone may not be satisfied because they dislike what they have while another may not be satisfied because they know there's always more to get.

If you were to put me in a field with pieces of gold and there were five gold bars around me and you said grab as many as I wanted, I would not feel negative if I only grabbed one, I would feel positive because I had more than I had previously. Similarly, I see another gold bar and I'm not satisfied with what I have because I would like to grab another. However, I still feel positive because I have a solid gold bar in my hands. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that by trying to achieve more it is not out of dislike of the current circumstance because it is negative but rather because what you could have is better than what you have now. A positive state is better than a neutral one therefore a person in a neutral state would strive for a positive one. I am not grabbing a second gold bar because I don't like the first one but rather because positive or more is better than less. Please let me know if this makes sense, I'm trying to clearly demonstrate how a circumstance may be neutral and that striving for something better does not make what you have a negative but rather that where you're going is better than where you're at.

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.

I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.

You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.

You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.

Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.

The person still reached their goal, even if the feeling of achievement was robbed of them. But again, this only strengthens my antinatalist argument (1a) as someone can reach their goal (something not guaranteed), and yet still be unsatisfied because of the way in which it was reached. You're just arguing for more instances wherein the person won't reach their goal (hence not be in a state of positive affect).

I can agree with everything you've said in your paragraph and that would strengthen my case.

I don't believe so, your argument is that there is always equal or more negative in the world. I'm pointing out that by someone taking away someone's obstacles of accomplishment that they can have no accomplishment and you're saying that they still made a positive but that's not a positive they were given it with no effort or obstacles which is not an accomplishment which is not rewardable by joy or satisfaction.

No, I'm not saying someone having reached their goal in a way that is unsatisfactory to them is positive.

I'm saying that people being able to reach their goals in an unsatisfactory way create *more* instances of negative affect, despite the goal being reached. This makes my 1a argument stronger because it shows that even if a person reaches their goal, they can still be a negative state.

I agree it does make your argument stronger because it demonstrates how there can be negative out of obtainment. But I don't believe it proves your argument because it does not prove that there is more negative than positive but rather that something absent of positivity can be achieved through obtainment.

Additionally, your argument requires negativity to always precede positivity. If you agreed with my argument, you would agree that people can move from a neutral state which is not dislikable but rather neutral as negative would be dislikable and they move from that neutral to a positive state in which the positive state they are drawn towards because it is a surplus and desirable more so than the absence of positive or negativity. It is evidence that positivity can exist without the predecessor of negativity. This disproves the foundation of the argument that there is always more negative in the world. This is not much of a new question, but it is another way of expressing the belief of the negative, neutral, and positive state of beings. Only once we have established that can we begin to answer the question of whether negativity always precedes positivity.

I'm agreeing which the specific part of your argument that argues, "that's not a positive they were given it with no effort or obstacles which is not an accomplishment which is not rewardable by joy or satisfaction". I'm not agreeing with your overall argument, especially the part that claims people can be a in a neutral state whilst having goals.

I understand now, I would like to focus on two aspects of the concept of anti-natalism.

Firstly, whether life has equal or greater negativity than positivity, and secondly, whether there is a neutral state of being aside from the negative and positive ones.

In response to comment #60 in the second paragraph, do you believe your moral justification for existence is your sacrifice in which you acknowledge that your existence does impose risk and potential dislikes on others and that you are forcing them upon them but that you justify this by devoting your life to the cause of anti-natalism in which you believe that by saving many kids from life in the future you more than justify your own existence?

Ultimately, it again proves that obstacles are not negative or positive but rather the individual subjectively determines whether or not the obstacle affects them negatively, neutrally, or positively. Therefore, the question of Anti-Natalism is a matter of subjective opinion, one individual may feel overall negative and therefore anti-natalism would be correct for that individual, while for another feels they can cope with life's challenges and therefore anti-natalism would be incorrect for that individual, there is no one size fits all.

You're just not thinking about the words you're typing.

For example, anyone who is raped in life experiences massive obstacles of (often life-long) trauma that is clearly severe negative affect. Nobody who is raped thinks, 'Great. This is an opportunity to overcome this obstacle and show that I have a mind of a conqueror'. It's just sheer nonsense to think that people who were raped don't have to experience negative affect.

You seem to think that any emotional reaction to events is purely a matter of choice, as if blowing a chunk out of someone's arm with a shotgun wouldn't immediately send them into shock. Total non-reality.

That would not be an obstacle but rather an evil, evil and tragedy are both different than obstacles. I believe I should draw the distinctions between them. An obstacle is something that is a challenge it usually is something that can be accomplished or overcome but it is sort of like a resistance to achieving one's goal.

Evil is something that is done by another with malevolence in the heart. It is not something that was meant to be but rather caused by another individual.

Tragedy is something that is or was inevitable by nature, it was caused by the universe and was not done so by one's will.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck. 

I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative.

Right. You're basically agreeing with my argument 1a at this point.

Again, this is not quite true. I said it is possible for an individual to feel defeated, and you are saying: Therefore, everyone's lives are more negative than positive.

I'm not saying it isn't possible for an individual to have more negative than positive in their life, but I am saying that it's subjective to the individual and that individual's mindset and how they react with the world. You cannot just say life is more negative than positive given this information.

My argument 1a isn't about whether the qualitative value of a human life is weighted more towards negative or positive affect (that's my argument 1b).

My argument 1a is about how many instances there are of negative and positive affect there are. When some people may be defeated (and feel negative

 affect), that literally states that not everyone wins. Since everyone starts off anything not having won (experiencing negative affect), and since only some people win (experience positive affect), mathematically, there has to be fewer instances of positive affect than negative affect.

I believe that this is the root of our disagreement. You're arguing that not everyone can be a winner, and no one starts a winner and if you're not a winner you're a loser and losers are negative.

Then you go on to say that if everyone starts negative and positivity can only be accomplished after negativity then there will always be equal to or greater than negative to positive. My argument is that positivity and negativity are not directly associated with being a winner or loser directly but rather they are typically associated with them. Someone can lose and feel positive, and another can win and feel negative, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, to say that because most people can't be winners most people feel negative is not quite logical. If you don't agree that someone can win and feel negative or someone can lose and feel positive, please say so and specifically address why.

I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.

It's possible that some people would want to take the chance, but we don't know for sure because there is no consent (my OP's argument 2). So, you're just gambling with someone's life without asking them first.

There's plenty of other horrible things that can go wrong in life, particularly towards the backend of life. Various cancers are quite common and often devastating. Chronic illnesses can pop up, too. It's not just dying from heart disease in infancy that is the only serious problem. The chances of you making it through life without something terrible happening can't be too high (and you're guaranteed to die at the end, too).

Also, unless you think that 100% of people would be fine taking this gamble, you're imposing this gamble on people without their consent *and* without thinking they would accept it -- that's morally problematic.

You mention 100% of people must be willing to accept it, what if 99% of people would have been grateful and experienced a good life. Are you to say that we are to deny those 99% of people the chance or human right to experience life? It's a give and take, you argue it's wrong to bring a person into existence if there is an even a small chance they will dislike it, but you don't mention about denying the many people who would have been grateful and glad to have it. How is this justifiable without their consent for the denial of life?

Do you think it's morally acceptable to torture 1% of people for the benefit of the 99%?

If yes, what about torturing 20%? Or 50%? Or 99%?

No, I don't, you point out exactly what I would like to address. I believe most would agree it is morally wrong to torture even just 1% without their consent. I also believe most people would agree it is morally wrong to deny people the benefits of life without their consent. I would like to discuss what we should do in order to handle this situation.

Are we to deny all people life because some people, however few, do not live an ideal life?

Are we to impose the inevitable tragedy upon that small percentage in order to benefit the majority?

I don't like either of these choices, and how does one choice trump the other?

I still believe that life is not more or equally negative than positive as a general rule, but I do acknowledge that due to tragedy and evil in the world some people's lives are more negative than positive. Is this close enough to your idea that it is acceptable to continue our discussion on whether bringing people into existence is morally incorrect?

I do see the moral problem of procreation, if some people are inevitably going to have more negative than positivity in their life and therefore by procreation, we are accepting the imposed negativity onto others however small the percentage nonetheless we are acting in a way we know will harm others by continuing the species. I do recognize this as a moral problem, while I also recognize the denial of life as a problem. I would like to discuss this further.

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.

Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?

There's a clear difference in likelihood and imposition, but you know what?

It's not.

Let's bring a graceful end to human life so scenarios like this can't happen.

So, you don't believe it is right to kill but you do believe it is acceptable to discontinue the species. I find this idea quite interesting. It's not quite a genocide while at the same time it is the discontinuation of the species, it is truly a fascinating concept to think about.

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who truly believes the stance of anti-natalism wouldn't be alive to argue it. This is because in order to have a coherent mindset the thoughts that are consistent with anti-natalism relate to the many things a person does through their life that are contrary to their belief. Do you acknowledge that you being alive is actively living out against the belief of anti-natalism principles? Are you aware that your very existence, however small the possibility, might bring a negative experience to another individual that you have forcefully imposed on them by being alive?

Antinatalism isn't necessarily a pro-suicide stance. It's a very different scenario once people are born, because they have a will to live, would bring tragedy to others if they were to kill themselves, and wouldn't be able to fight for antinatalism if they are dead. There's great moral issues in killing someone who is already alive, as opposed to preventing further lives from existing.

Antinatalism is ultimately about preventing lives from coming into existence, rather than ending lives that already in existence.

I believe you acknowledge that your existence is imposing potential dislikes to others which is the same concept of not bringing one into existence. However, I believe I see you draw a distinction in that not bringing someone to existence is not going out of one's way to impose others with tragedies of life meanwhile ending oneself in order to prevent the known discomforts imposed on others from one's own existence is going out of one's way to do so. Better than ending life, we prevent it.

I acknowledge this is morally acceptable, however I do see the flip side; is it morally acceptable to deny people existence without their consent? How much joy and laughter would we take away from others?

I believe the resolution to the problem is to have genetic engineers continue the species and completely restrict unauthorized sex. This would limit only individuals who are sure to be intelligent and successful participants of society to be brought into existence, and they could be immune to almost every disease and illness, not to mention they would be almost perfectly designed so it would be impossible for any of them to die from a miscarriage.

It is this way the species could continue while maintaining a less tragic existence for all individuals. Additionally, with advancing technology we could prevent even more deaths from natural disasters, and we could implement insurance covered by taxes that would ensure people don't lose their material assets due to tragedies. We could even engineer individuals so that everyone would be happy with their role in society.

Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this idea, regardless, it is the solution to the problem. What are your thoughts?