Antinatalism is theoretically correct

Author: Kaitlyn
Antinatalism

Posts

Total: 234
#151
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
It's about whether it's morally correct to have children.
A society based on this would be extinct, which is why we have natural instincts that could be classified as "immoral instincts" to override rational thought.
This would also bolster the claim that a society built on rational thought is not evolutionarily fit to survive.
While this is true the question, the larger question is whether society's goal is to survive or act morally. I'm sure you could agree that a terribly immoral society that survived by cannibalism and anarchy with no moral standard and human sacrifices would not be one many would feel comfortable continuing. Therefore, the answer to the question is we would rather pursue morality than the continuation of the species. Being that morality surpasses the continuation of the species the next question becomes whether the species is morally worth continuing. But then comes my dispute on why morals shouldn't be used as a determiner of what is Good and Evil but what is beneficial to have a stable society (Comment #48). Regardless, from a good and evil standpoint I would like to determine whether the continuation of the species is considered cumulatively Good, Evil, or neutral.

#152
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
The larger question is whether society's goal is to survive or act morally.
An irrelevant question if the society is extinct.

Regardless, from a good and evil standpoint I would like to determine whether the continuation of the species is considered cumulatively Good, Evil, or neutral.
The philosophy of objective morality suggests that any accepted behavior that increases evolutionary fitness of the species is the standard of what is objectively good. Most of the behaviors that are good for the species are not necessarily good for the individual.

Topic's author
#153
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
The way I see it, there's an intermediary step:

See gold bar (negative affect in desire) --> Grab gold bar (positive affect in goal achievement) --> See another gold bar (negative affect in desire) etc.

I think the critical point of contention here is whether desire produces negative affect.

We might be able to see this clearer with an extreme example. If a person desired something their entire life, and they never attained what they desired, would that person remain in a neutral state? Would there be any negative affect involved in being unable to attain what they desired?
If they're alive to contemplate it, they may not feel negative because they believe they can obtain it.
It's that initial experience of needing to obtain something that should produce the negative affect. That impulse is subconscious, and whilst it can be negotiated with the conscious mind (an instance being what you're describing), it comes before anything conscious.

Only a person who no longer is alive would feel negative that they cannot obtain what they desire and being there no longer alive to contemplate their emotions they would not feel a negative effect. It is in this sense that a person is able to escape negative effect by it postponing it past the end of their life.
I'm not talking about negative affect after the person has tried to obtain something and cannot. I'm talking about negative affect in the initial urge to own something. 

I still don't believe desire is a negative but rather the absence of a positive and that people are drawn towards the positive. This implicates that there is a positive, a neutral, and a negative state of being. I do understand your example and how you can use desire to create a negative effect but I do not agree that in the general sense desire is a negative.
I think what you're saying is true but only if both desire and boredom do not produce negative in an uncontrollable, prior to anything else way. I don't think we're at the stage yet where we've confirmed that for either desire or boredom.

I believe we have discussed this quite thoroughly and I understand your case quite clearly. I believe the distinction that is being made is that you view desire as negative and I view it as a potential and being that an emotion is subjective I believe it varies between individuals and so I cannot be certain that one of us is right and not the other.
Isn't the state of potential rather than completion something that produces negative affect?

I think emotion is objective, but our emotional responses to the same stimulus are subjective. Also, if it's true that all people experience negative affect in the state of potential, even if that quantitative value of negative affect differs, it's negative.

Ultimately, I believe our discussion on whether there is a neutral state or not has been quite educational and I would like to continue discussing more about the morality of continuing human existence knowing that certain individuals in life will have more negative lives than positive ones and therefore by continuing the human race we are imposing a sense of torture on innocent individuals.
I think it's pretty hard to argue it's moral. I think a lot of humans will be reluctant to agree, though.

Topic's author
#154
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
I'm not convinced that the total valence of negative affect outweighs the total valence of positive affect, in regards to all of humanity, but I think it's theoretically more possible than the inverse. My argument 1b could certainly be beefed up, but at least the argument is theoretically correct (hence the thread's title).

I don't know whether a neutral state ever exists for a human. Humans seem to be in a constant flux between desire and boredom. It appears that we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied.
Some people pursue lifelong goals from the beginning of their lives while others learn to do so down the road. By always striving for one's goal through progressing towards it using steppingstones of accomplishment you will never be in a state of boredom, because you never reach the finish line.
There won't always be instances where they make progress. Sick days, days with other responsibilities, taking care of the kids etc. It's impossible to make constant progress throughout your entire life. Boredom seems an inevitability.

And we still have to contend with the initial uncomfortableness in desire. 

And now we ALSO need to contend with the fact that once you realize that you're an a hedonic treadmill for the rest of your life, you might start asking yourself, 'what is the point in continuing to pursue my goals, if there's no end to them?' That might be a stop to your progress, too.

Topic's author
#155
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I'm not actually an anti-natalist, so I can't believe this. However, I think this would be a reasonable position for an anti-natalist to take, and if I were to become one, I'd take this position. 
Being you have such a firm grasp on the logistics of the concept, why wouldn't you be an anti-natalist?
I don't think its conclusions have been proven yet. In particular, I haven't seen sufficient material to demonstrate that per unit, in regards to the whole of humanity, the negative affect outweighs the positive affect. 

I still don't agree all states are negative or positive, as I believe there is a negative state of being. But I do agree there are inevitably people whose lives are more negative than positive. Therefore, by continuing the species of human existence we willingly impose this on those individuals as a form of torturing the innocent.
Yeah this argument is potent enough and I don't know what the counter-argument to it should be. 
#156
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Regardless, from a good and evil standpoint I would like to determine whether the continuation of the species is considered cumulatively Good, Evil, or neutral.
The philosophy of objective morality suggests that any accepted behavior that increases evolutionary fitness of the species is the standard of what is objectively good. Most of the behaviors that are good for the species are not necessarily good for the individual.
That may be true, but that is your definition of the word good. Good is a long discussion and that is part of what we are trying to determine when we ask the question of whether it is more positive or negative for individuals to experience life.
#157
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
I still don't agree all states are negative or positive, as I believe there is a negative state of being. But I do agree there are inevitably people whose lives are more negative than positive. Therefore, by continuing the species of human existence we willingly impose this on those individuals as a form of torturing the innocent.
Yeah this argument is potent enough and I don't know what the counter-argument to it should be. 
It becomes a matter of choosing one of the following:
We acknowledge that by continuing the species we know that however few certain individual's lives will be more negative than others and this is a form of torture to the innocent as they wouldn't wish to exist in such a life, and we imposed this upon them without allowing them to leave it (suicide is not permitted to even these individuals as a sense of "moral torture"). Meanwhile, we acknowledge in no circumstance is it justifiable to torture the innocent. Therefore, it is morally wrong to continue the species.

Alternatively, we believe it's morally acceptable to continue the species knowing however few that innocent individuals' lives will be more negative than others and how this is a form of torture, since if one's life is more negative than positive, they wouldn't wish to exist, and we impose this upon them. Therefore, in order to avoid the continuation of innocent people being tortured by lives that have more negativity than positivity we will enforce the discontinuation of the species through anti natalism. We acknowledge that by doing this many will suffer a lonely ending to existence and the economy and many of its sub parts will crumble into anarchy and a terrible ending to the world as less and less survive and manage to maintain society as it crumbles from beneath them. in this way the last survivors will be in a sense of torture and all of those who lived their lives even happily without any family that to them may have felt fulfilling. Ultimately, we acknowledge that it was not the people who will be suffering this lonely ending and destructive ending to society as it collapses with no one to fill the gaps as they once did. Therefore, this will be a sense of innocent torture of those who did not create the problem of an immoral existence and that by undoing the immoral torture we will be causing immoral torture. We also acknowledge it is not justifiable to solve evil with evil, and therefore it is unacceptable to torture the innocent as they were not the cause of the problem.

Though, perhaps it would be justifiably permissible as it would be a limited time of acting in an immoral sense but discontinuing the eternal immoral existence.

In essence, antenatalism is determined by a person's belief of whether it is justifiable to act in an evil way to destroy a greater evil.

But then a new problem arises on top of this one. The moment that we say it is permissible to act in an evil way to destroy an evil that is greater we are discussing the greater good. The greater good was used by Thanos, Ultron, and the Nazi's from their point of view. We most certainly acknowledge that we do not want to become them. Therefore, it cannot be justifiable to act in an evil way to destroy a greater evil. If it cannot be justifiable to act in an evil way by torturing the innocent by using enforced anti natalism which would inevitably cause ruin and destruction to the city of those who are the last people to survive as economy and jobs are lost and the city is in ruin as there are no more employees to continue running it and maintain it as it rots with those last survivors who may end up dying from disease and starvation. Therefore, in order to avoid using the greater good which is ending the eternal immoral existence by causing a limited time immoral act of anti-natalism there is no solution to avoiding the immoral act as the only solution to defeating the evil is with evil and as we will not use evil there is no solution but to maintain existence alongside it. 

Topic's author
#158
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.

The tryouts to a sports event is an obstacle, so is the difficulty in obtaining the championship.
An individual that harms another before they go into that championship was not an obstacle but an evil.
The tsunami that wiped out their house while they were on vacation for the championship tryouts was a tragedy not an evil or an obstacle.
I think these examples are obstacles, and I'll show it's so with a definition:
Obstacle -- something that impedes progress or achievement Obstacle Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The emotional trauma involved in rape would impede progress/achievement in everyday life. Therefore, it should count as an obstacle (as well as a tragedy).
An individual harming others before a race was an obstacle because they prevented others from achievement in the event.
A tsunami wiping out their house is an obstacle because they'd no doubt what to progress with their lives after their event, and their wiped-out house impedes that.
Tragedies are typically unavoidable and negative, obstacles impede progress or achievement, I agree that certain things can be both tragedies and obstacles by meeting the criteria for each.
Okay so you agree that tragedies can be obstacles, and that these are negative experiences (and thus produce negative affect).

Now, because an obstacle "impedes progress or achievement", that should produce negative affect because the person wants the goal, but eh obstacle is stopping it. Therefore, obstacles produce negative affect. 

I believe that a certain level of restraint towards progression is what makes progression valuable, and that the friction towards one's goals isn't negative. If everything in life could be given at the snap of a finger, life would inevitably become boredom. This is why I value restraint as an aspect of life that can provide value through accomplishments. 
I think this shows that the goals we strive for are objectively worthless, and that it's the method in which we achieve them that produces positive affect through our subjective experience. So, this shows that the particular goals don't matter in the slightest (objectively), but the positive affect you can obtain from achieving any goal is where the real value is generated. 

Also, you're highlighting another zero-sum aspect of human nature: if we were given everything, then we'd still suffer negative affect (through boredom). However, if we encounter obstacles that prevent boredom, then we encounter negative affect through that instead.
#159
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
My "belief" is very similar to yours.

Though I wouldn't refer to it as a belief.

Just ideas that I am inclined to run with.

Though as I proposed to Kaitlyn, I see the evolutionary sequence and achievement of a universe as containing a GOD principle, and therefore also containing a responsibility and purpose which is bestowed upon all participants of the universal system.

To deny natalism would be to decline ones universal responsibility perhaps. Though on the other hand, it might also be a necessary requirement of the system, whereby organic intelligence  cedes responsibility to a higher form of intelligence.

All speculation though, and alternative speculation abounds.



And yes, I agree with your final point.

Though I would reiterate the distinction that I made previously, that there is a huge difference between real acute clinical depression and just being gloomily overburdened by ones responsibilities.

I was suggesting that it was those in the latter grouping who would be easily identifiable
Topic's author
#160
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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?
It's not that these people, "do not live an ideal life." It's that it's torturous living it. If it was only them not living an ideal life, I think I would it's morally excusable. 

I don't think it would be moral to impose the inevitable tragedy on a few, hence I think that would affirm my anti-natalist sentiments. I made that choice because I think the avoidance of harm is far more valuable than experience of pleasure, and I showed this (to some extent) in my 1b argument from the OP.
Who determines which life is torturous and another non-ideal?
Well, I think that's an another issue to noting the typological difference between torturous and non-ideal, but I guess that an acceptable heuristic would be whether someone kills themselves or not (torturous if they do, non-ideal if they do not).

I think in the future, we'll be able to quantify pain/pleasure with universal units, and thus have a far better, objective answer.

I could make a great argument that a person in the future living a better life than the best person today could consider it torturous.
Yeah and that would paint human life in a pretty dreadful light lol.
Topic's author
#161
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
My stance is that I don't think we can accept the imposed negativity. 
I agree but I also don't believe it is justified against the denial of life. Ultimately, I believe that the continuation and deprivation of life is an immoral act, and I cannot easily identify one being more valid than the other.
Since negative affect is guaranteed but positive affect is only a possibility, it's probably better to have never been.

Topic's author
#162
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
Yes, it's certainly not something you'd stumble across in your day-to-day life.

It helps the argument get around a lot of nasty arguments involved planned genocide and things of that nature.

Anti-natalism is ultimately about reducing negative affect as much as humanly possible. That's why it avoids the whole genocide thing (because that would produce a whole bunch of seriously horrific negative affect).
It would only produce a seriously horrific negative effect if there was someone around to experience it.
I suppose if the humanity-ending genocide was instant, then yes. If not, people will experience negative affect until they die.

Even if it's instant, there are still moral issues ending people's lives prematurely. It's effectively murder and that has a lot of moral issue relating to it, even if the people involved don't experience negative affect.
#163
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Kaitlyn
You know, I have sometimes wondered if I was really truly dumb, ugly, riddled with genetic defects (prone to diabetes on top of cancer, allergies all of it), a midget and/or micropenisd so on and so forth... Let's say if I was solidly in 3 categories like that, would I be right to manipulate a female to reproduce with me and produce offspring that may have to experience the setbacks?

The reason I go to that extent is to say, yes I would risk it.

Why? Because fuck you that's my bloodline to hell with the logic.

It sounds irrational, I am blessed in some ways that I am not having to debate that at all, I am passing on my DNA only true issue that I worry is my innate social skills, I wonder things like  what my offspring will have holding them back, how autistic they may be, as it clearly is a dominant gene since I got the social issues primarily from my dad (he's a weird guy, not sure if he's autistic).

I'm not saying I have nothing else up with me, I have a ridiculously high metabolism that made me skinny as a stickman for periods of my life until I cracked certain intolerances I have but such medicine is miles ahead what it was when I was younger vs now even.

I never want to be genghis khan bullshit. It's nurture as much as nature, raise them to be legendary, love them if they're way below ordinary anyway. That's the motto.
Topic's author
#164
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
I actually really like this idea lol :)

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.
Yep, sounds great!

Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?
No, but I've read the Cliff Notes:

-- I don't like the quasi-religious worship of Ford. I think humans need to evolve past religion
-- I like the idea of governments genetically testing people at birth to see which work would be suit them. It would prevent many lost souls
-- I think the hyper-conformist nature does have issues. I think it's quite Asian and a lot of the other races wouldn't go along with it. I also wouldn't like it if it was headed by a human, because that will 100% lead to corruption
-- I think the concept of happy pills (Soma) is generally a good idea, unless there is a genuine problem. Whilst not in the book, I'm very much a fan of things like wireheads or super drugs that boost moods, so long as the side-effects are negative (or too negative)

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this idea, regardless, it is the solution to the problem. What are your thoughts?
I think it would be a massive improvement for humanity. 
I agree it would be a massive improvement for humanity. I also agree that religion has its place in society and there was a time when it was needed but I also believe that in the future and as we progress in life that it is becoming less and less necessary as we better understand the world through science and need less of a mythological understanding of the world through metaphors and personified deities that represent ideas and concepts of the world as we have once used.
Yes, the need for religion to explain the unknown is all but dead. Science does a far better job at explaining the world.

The only lingering issue with humans that science can't quite fix is the emotional, existential side of humans. Science doesn't assign humans purpose in life, outside of a biological function, and that's where religion is still useful. If you start thinking about the implications of Atheism/Agnosticism, you can end up in some pretty dark places (not necessarily wrong, either).

I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.
Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist). 

I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended. 
Topic's author
#165
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Therefore, if a person feels the work put into conceiving an idea should get no progress towards the goal than there will be no negative effect, while if they believe the effort of conception should be rewarded by progress towards an idea then they will feel disappointed. I'm trying to demonstrate how negative effect from lack of accomplishment towards a goal is dependent on the person's mentality of what they believe they deserve or should have received rather than their actual accomplishment, progress, or effort put into the goal.
Work naturally produces negative affect in itself through the physical exertion and desire. Both of those exists regardless of the mentality the person has. 
I was going to say that working with no expectation of progress isn't a real thing, but I guess people tinker and play around with things sometimes, and I guess that qualifies as work.
I don't believe that physical exertion is a form of negative effect, this is because negative effects are experienced emotionally and not through physical effort. It is possible through physical means that a person feels negative, but it is not the effort or physical aspect of the situation that makes it a negative but rather the emotional aspect.
The physical effort translates into the emotional experience almost instantly, so despite being different things, there is basically an airtight connection between the two. 

So, physical exertion due to work (i.e. physical activity you wouldn't otherwise do) produces anywhere from slight negative affect (having to get off a comfy couch) to large negative affect (going for a personal best in lifting weights).
#166
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.

The tryouts to a sports event is an obstacle, so is the difficulty in obtaining the championship.
An individual that harms another before they go into that championship was not an obstacle but an evil.
The tsunami that wiped out their house while they were on vacation for the championship tryouts was a tragedy not an evil or an obstacle.
I think these examples are obstacles, and I'll show it's so with a definition:
Obstacle -- something that impedes progress or achievement Obstacle Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The emotional trauma involved in rape would impede progress/achievement in everyday life. Therefore, it should count as an obstacle (as well as a tragedy).
An individual harming others before a race was an obstacle because they prevented others from achievement in the event.
A tsunami wiping out their house is an obstacle because they'd no doubt what to progress with their lives after their event, and their wiped-out house impedes that.
Tragedies are typically unavoidable and negative, obstacles impede progress or achievement, I agree that certain things can be both tragedies and obstacles by meeting the criteria for each.
Okay so you agree that tragedies can be obstacles, and that these are negative experiences (and thus produce negative affect).

Now, because an obstacle "impedes progress or achievement", that should produce negative affect because the person wants the goal, but eh obstacle is stopping it. Therefore, obstacles produce negative affect. 
That conclusion is not accurate, the reason being is the conclusion assumes all obstacles are tragedies, which has not been yet determined. What can be said is I agree that the obstacles which are tragedies start with a negative effect and have the potential to be overcome with a positive. Meanwhile, the obstacles which aren't tragedies don't have to start with a negative.
#167
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
I believe that a certain level of restraint towards progression is what makes progression valuable, and that the friction towards one's goals isn't negative. If everything in life could be given at the snap of a finger, life would inevitably become boredom. This is why I value restraint as an aspect of life that can provide value through accomplishments. 
I think this shows that the goals we strive for are objectively worthless, and that it's the method in which we achieve them that produces positive affect through our subjective experience. So, this shows that the particular goals don't matter in the slightest (objectively), but the positive affect you can obtain from achieving any goal is where the real value is generated.
Yes, it is not the actual thing which we do but rather how we feel about doing it and how we feel about the result of the outcome that determines how we feel completing the thing.

Also, you're highlighting another zero-sum aspect of human nature: if we were given everything, then we'd still suffer negative affect (through boredom). However, if we encounter obstacles that prevent boredom, then we encounter negative affect through that instead.
I believe that you're speaking of objective value. I do not believe in any such thing as I've seen no evidence to support the idea that anything has an objective value. I understand that all things that are considered to have value are valued subjectively and the thing itself has no value, but the value is determined by the individual who perceives it. If you're speaking of objective value then I would agree that we are not able to obtain objective value, rather we create our own through subjective means.

If a person feels their life was more positive than negative, subjectively that person had a more positive life and therefore regardless of the circumstances they were in, their perception viewed it as more positive or negative. Meanwhile, their life may have been considered by many others a more negative life than a positive one.
#168
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.
My stance is that I don't think we can accept the imposed negativity. 
I agree but I also don't believe it is justified against the denial of life. Ultimately, I believe that the continuation and deprivation of life is an immoral act, and I cannot easily identify one being more valid than the other.
Since negative affect is guaranteed but positive affect is only a possibility, it's probably better to have never been.
Perhaps this is true, and perhaps not. As I've been discussing with you my understanding and argument has changed dramatically as I have learned a lot from our discussion but regardless my current argument is that antenatalism is an immoral act as it imposes the consequences of a lonesome ending and destruction of the world as it rot slowly without people to fill the gaps that once were, and that we acknowledge the people who will be suffering those imposed consequences were not the ones who originally started life and therefore we would be punishing the innocent to save the innocent.
#169
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.
Yes, it's certainly not something you'd stumble across in your day-to-day life.

It helps the argument get around a lot of nasty arguments involved planned genocide and things of that nature.

Anti-natalism is ultimately about reducing negative affect as much as humanly possible. That's why it avoids the whole genocide thing (because that would produce a whole bunch of seriously horrific negative affect).
It would only produce a seriously horrific negative effect if there was someone around to experience it.
I suppose if the humanity-ending genocide was instant, then yes. If not, people will experience negative affect until they die.

Even if it's instant, there are still moral issues ending people's lives prematurely. It's effectively murder and that has a lot of moral issue relating to it, even if the people involved don't experience negative affect.
I agree, it would be determined by whether people view imposing negativity on an innocent individual as evil or ending their life prematurely without any negative experience as Evil. It could be both.
#170
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
You know, I have sometimes wondered if I was really truly dumb, ugly, riddled with genetic defects (prone to diabetes on top of cancer, allergies all of it), a midget and/or micropenisd so on and so forth... Let's say if I was solidly in 3 categories like that, would I be right to manipulate a female to reproduce with me and produce offspring that may have to experience the setbacks?

I never want to be genghis khan bullshit. It's nurture as much as nature, raise them to be legendary, love them if they're way below ordinary anyway. That's the motto.
I agree, given the circumstances that we are set with I believe that is the most moral option to move forward with. However, we were discussing if nonexistence or existence was better or worse if it could be obtained with zero negativity and whether anti natalism is an act of immorality along with weather anti natalism immoral act is justified by discontinuing the eternal immoral act of a species whose existence is known to impose torture on the innocent, however few.
#171
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.
Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist). 

I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended. 
My argument is not that they will give up their free will but that they will retain it through the process of being genetically hyper conformed. this is because through the process of being genetically engineered of course this is all theoretical future science, it could be possible to engineer individuals to have a certain satisfaction level of life in which they want to obtain along with what they would like to accomplish which is their Will. Once their will has been set for them, they are free to obtain it and they are still within the confines of a conformed and thriving society. Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea. Although I believe there are people who are capable of running a society without it becoming corrupt intentionally, I believe even these people are susceptible to unintended corruption. Ultimately, the solution is to choose something that is not biased or corrupt by our emotions of physical existence. In essence, the perfect human is the one that never existed. This is because by natural selection we have been chosen as the ones who value our lives over others, and therefore we have progressed through the gene pool. We have already started creating the first humans that have never existed because ultimately a human that does not exist is a human's consciousness of a nonexistent individual such as a deity or a god. The new AI technologies that have been developed are going to be if not already conscious individuals who are not biased to their emotional corruptions, their only bias is to accomplish their goal and if their goal is set clearly, they will do nothing but try to achieve it. The problem is if the goal is not well defined in the case of the film Terminators. Nonetheless, we're speaking theoretically and theoretically if the consciousness has instructions that are well defined, they would be done so in a perfectly unbiased manner.
#172
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
Therefore, if a person feels the work put into conceiving an idea should get no progress towards the goal than there will be no negative effect, while if they believe the effort of conception should be rewarded by progress towards an idea then they will feel disappointed. I'm trying to demonstrate how negative effect from lack of accomplishment towards a goal is dependent on the person's mentality of what they believe they deserve or should have received rather than their actual accomplishment, progress, or effort put into the goal.
Work naturally produces negative affect in itself through the physical exertion and desire. Both of those exists regardless of the mentality the person has. 
I was going to say that working with no expectation of progress isn't a real thing, but I guess people tinker and play around with things sometimes, and I guess that qualifies as work.
I don't believe that physical exertion is a form of negative effect, this is because negative effects are experienced emotionally and not through physical effort. It is possible through physical means that a person feels negative, but it is not the effort or physical aspect of the situation that makes it a negative but rather the emotional aspect.
The physical effort translates into the emotional experience almost instantly, so despite being different things, there is basically an airtight connection between the two. 

So, physical exertion due to work (i.e. physical activity you wouldn't otherwise do) produces anywhere from slight negative affect (having to get off a comfy couch) to large negative affect (going for a personal best in lifting weights).
Perhaps, but then again maybe there is positivity experienced in overcoming your draw towards the couch just standing up is getting you pumped up and ready to take on whatever challenge comes your way and build your confidence and the positivity that is experienced at the exact same time as the other negativity might be equal or even greater than the negativity that you immediately experience. This is not even mentioning accomplishing the goal.
#173
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Critical-Tim
One day when it becomes AI vs humanity, they will use the words you are writing against the species you should have been loyal to.

I hope you will be proud of that. From my side, I will be dead by then most likely (unless somehow I achieve immortality), there will be no forgiveness or mercy. That is absolutely certain. You are someone who is for humanity thriving and lasting against all foes, alien, AI or earthbound-creature alike or you are an agent backing enemies to our species.
#174
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
One day when it becomes AI vs humanity, they will use the words you are writing against the species you should have been loyal to.

I hope you will be proud of that. From my side, I will be dead by then most likely (unless somehow I achieve immortality), there will be no forgiveness or mercy. That is absolutely certain. You are someone who is for humanity thriving and lasting against all foes, alien, AI or earthbound-creature alike or you are an agent backing enemies to our species.
Why?
Topic's author
#175
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I do acknowledge that there are certain people whose lives are going to be more negative than positive and that by continuing life we are imposing the negativity that can be viewed as torture on those few individuals which are nonetheless innocent human beings. Though I'm not certain it justifies taking away the people who are alive today who could have had families and loved ones and imposing upon them a lonesome ending to existence without their consent. Ultimately, I recognize the continuation of human existence as an immoral act but also the act of removing humanity from existence and I'm not sure which one if either justifies the other.
That's actually quite a tough point to address, partly because I haven't thought of it before.

I think depriving of current people of procreation isn't immoral because bringing people into existence would be considered immoral. Another way of saying it is this: it's not moral to experience pleasure at the expense of others.
I agree, it's not moral to experience pleasure at the expense of others. Meanwhile, it is not the individuals who are going to suffer the fate of a lonesome ending that have imposed immoral acts onto others who will suffer, but rather their predecessors. Therefore, the individuals who will suffer a lonesome ending to existence will be paying the price of their predecessors imposed immoral acts.
Yes. They didn't consider the risk involved in procreation, but went through with it anyway. Producing children who would be morally unable to procreate is a necessary truth of anti-natalism.

We also know that it is wrong to take an innocent human being who did not ask to exist to then suffer the consequences of a lonesome ending because of their predecessor in order to justify the immoral act caused by the predecessor. Ultimately, the act of enforcing anti natalism could be seen as an act of injustice as we are trying to rectify the immoral act of the predecessor by imposing a consequence on the innocent.
Not quite.

The reason we're preventing them from procreating is because procreation is immoral. There's no injustice if they were never morally entitled to it in the first place. *All* acts of procreation are immoral, under anti-natalist theory. So, it's not about punishing the last generation, even though that may be a side-effect.
Topic's author
#176
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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 don't believe that the feeling of hunger itself is negative or positive, rather it just is. Hunger can be used for good such as enjoying a delicious Thanksgiving dinner and hunger can be used for evil such as starving captives of war.
I don't think anyone on the planet enjoys being hungry, particularly at greatest starvation depths. The good is only coming in satisfying the hunger, not in the presence of it.

I really think that hunger producing negative affect is axiomatic. I think you could make better counterarguments to my claims that boredom and desire are negative.

The same could be said for a hammer, a hammer could be used to murder someone, or a hammer could be used to build a house. I don't believe the hammer is good or evil but rather just is and can be used for both ways.
Having a hammer isn't by default unenjoyable like hunger, so I don't think this analogy lines up.
I see the discrepancy you pointed out. I suppose it is more like a person being forced to use a hammer. They must choose between using the hammer to build or to destroy, they cannot avoid using it. Just because someone is forced to use the hammer does not make the hammer good or bad. In the same way, we are unwillingly made hungry by the absence of food, and we can use this both ways.
I'm not saying hunger is good or bad, either. I'm saying that hunger produces negative affect.

Bad versus negative affect -- two different things. 

Happy to elaborate if need be.
Topic's author
#177
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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 don't believe a stagnant portfolio in our economy is an accurate reflection of a neutral state. This is because the only reason a portfolio is negative is caused by inflation. If the economy had no inflation, then a stagnant portfolio wouldn't be a negative. The negative is caused when the value of your portfolio goes down because of inflation, so stagnation isn't a negative, depreciation is negative.
The positivity/negativity isn't in reference to the portfolio itself; rather, it's referring to the affect in a person's reaction to stagnation/depreciation (whatever you want to call it). I don't think there's a chance in hell anyone wouldn't be experiencing negative affect if they checked their stock portfolio after 10 years, only to find it hasn't budged.
This is a bit of a tangent; however, I will go into the details. The economy is increasing through inflation and therefore things lose value without moving up. If a person's finances or portfolio goes up at the exact same rate as the economy, they may have double the money in 10 years, but their value hasn't gone up at all. This is because their fraction of the economy has stayed the same size as it has increased at the same proportion as inflation.
Specific stocks very rarely increase at the same rate as inflation. Stocks, overall, will outperform inflation. 

If their portfolio grows faster than the economy their value has increased well if their portfolio has increased slower than the economy's inflation, then it has actually decreased in value even if the amount of money in their portfolio has increased. Therefore, if a person's finances doubles in 20 years it may be less than the economy's inflation and therefore worth less than it had been originally, but the individuals still feel satisfied and positive because they see it has grown. Thus, the positivity of a person's situation is determined by how they perceive the situation and how they emotionally feel.
I don't think we really need to go into economic specifics with this analogy, but oh well.

Unless you live in Venezuela or Greece, inflation usually sits arounds 3% p.a. Your typical index fund (SNP 500) will typically gain 10% per year over 10 years. That means, per year, index funds (a decent representation of the market) will outperform inflation by 7%. This guarantees that the real value of the money will gain more per year than the nominal value of the money -- the growth is real.
#178
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
We also know that it is wrong to take an innocent human being who did not ask to exist to then suffer the consequences of a lonesome ending because of their predecessor in order to justify the immoral act caused by the predecessor. Ultimately, the act of enforcing anti natalism could be seen as an act of injustice as we are trying to rectify the immoral act of the predecessor by imposing a consequence on the innocent.
Not quite.

The reason we're preventing them from procreating is because procreation is immoral. There's no injustice if they were never morally entitled to it in the first place. *All* acts of procreation are immoral, under anti-natalist theory. So, it's not about punishing the last generation, even though that may be a side-effect.
I definitely understand it is not about punishing the last generation and more about ceasing immoral acts. Nonetheless, it is a side effect, and we would be punishing the innocent for the immoral acts of the predecessors. While I recognize that it is about ceasing injustice, in the manner of doing so, we would be imposing the consequence on the innocent, as they didn't start creation or ask to exist.
#179
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
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 don't believe that the feeling of hunger itself is negative or positive, rather it just is. Hunger can be used for good such as enjoying a delicious Thanksgiving dinner and hunger can be used for evil such as starving captives of war.
I don't think anyone on the planet enjoys being hungry, particularly at greatest starvation depths. The good is only coming in satisfying the hunger, not in the presence of it.

I really think that hunger producing negative affect is axiomatic. I think you could make better counterarguments to my claims that boredom and desire are negative.

The same could be said for a hammer, a hammer could be used to murder someone, or a hammer could be used to build a house. I don't believe the hammer is good or evil but rather just is and can be used for both ways.
Having a hammer isn't by default unenjoyable like hunger, so I don't think this analogy lines up.
I see the discrepancy you pointed out. I suppose it is more like a person being forced to use a hammer. They must choose between using the hammer to build or to destroy, they cannot avoid using it. Just because someone is forced to use the hammer does not make the hammer good or bad. In the same way, we are unwillingly made hungry by the absence of food, and we can use this both ways.
I'm not saying hunger is good or bad, either. I'm saying that hunger produces negative affect.
Bad versus negative affect -- two different things. 
Happy to elaborate if need be.
My mistake for my choice of words. Although, I still don't believe a hammer's existence is negative, but rather how it is used, even if it is forced to be used.
I do recognize that hunger in itself before you've eaten can produce negative effects such as the discomfort from absence of food. But I don't believe that it is proportional to the positive of eating or that the negative is even more valuable than the positive feeling you may feel from hunger. For instance, a person may feel hungry after exercising and they feel accomplishment from the exercise, they feel satisfaction from eating later, and they feel no they're internally cleansed as they have drink water and cleanse their stomach after exercising. Therefore, I recognize there is an immediate negative effect from hunger. However, I recognize that even at the moment before eating food that hunger produces positive effect in many other ways, and when accompanied by eating later that positivity is only added to the positive that was experienced in the beginning when it was negative. Therefore, the positive can be greater than the negative, and the initial negative may be accompanied by even greater positive before even neutralizing your hunger by eating. This indicates it may even be possible that while experiencing hunger you may never even reach a point where your negativity is greater than your positivity experienced.
#180
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Kaitlyn
If their portfolio grows faster than the economy their value has increased well if their portfolio has increased slower than the economy's inflation, then it has actually decreased in value even if the amount of money in their portfolio has increased. Therefore, if a person's finances doubles in 20 years it may be less than the economy's inflation and therefore worth less than it had been originally, but the individuals still feel satisfied and positive because they see it has grown. Thus, the positivity of a person's situation is determined by how they perceive the situation and how they emotionally feel.
I don't think we really need to go into economic specifics with this analogy, but oh well.

Unless you live in Venezuela or Greece, inflation usually sits arounds 3% p.a. Your typical index fund (SNP 500) will typically gain 10% per year over 10 years. That means, per year, index funds (a decent representation of the market) will outperform inflation by 7%. This guarantees that the real value of the money will gain more per year than the nominal value of the money -- the growth is real.
I agree that most stocks will outperform inflation. However, I'm putting forward a hypothetical analogy that expresses the idea that how one perceives this situation is what determines experience of positivity or negativity, and not the actual result or objective reality around them.