What are some logical arguments against antinatalism...

What are some logical arguments against antinatalism? It feels like every other argument is based on muh feelings rather than logical explanation why is refusing to reproduce "bad" in any possible way.

Weak antinatalism is the position that refusing to reproduce is justifiable
Strong antinatalism is the position that reproducing is unjustifiable.

There are no arguments against strong antinatalism either, other than "muh species"

Arguments for anti-natalism are based on >muh feelings

If anything, antinatalism is much more based on "muh feelings" than arguments against it.

Antinatalism is spooky. That said, it's neither more nor less spooky then any other prescriptive system of ethics.

well antinatalism is based on "hurr mom took my xbox aways, i hate everything" so there is nothing to disprove

Strong antinatalism, as has it, relies on there being something inherantly bad about reproducing, which can only be so if there is something inherantly bad about being born. If being born is not inherantly bad, then the giving of life cannot be inherantly wrong either, and so reproduction would not wrong or unjustifiable.

It's popular for antinatalists to appeal to the harshness of life in order to justify the premise that to be born is to be harmed. Since life is so very full of hardships in almost all cases, being brought into being must, nine times out of ten, be bad for you, and so it must be wrong to bring life into being. Now, this of course does not do what the antinatalist needs it to do, since if even some lives are worth living, then being brought into being cannot be bad in itself, but only accidentally, and so reproduction would not be unjustifiable tout court, but only in certain curcumstances.

So the antinatalist needs to show that being born is a harm in itself. If he cannot do this, then he cannot show birth to be intrinsically bad, and so cannot show reproduction to be intrinsically wrong. And being born cannot be a harm in itself, for the following reason. To be harmed is to undergo a change from a state of higher wellbeing to a state of lower wellbeing, and this implies that any being which is harmed must exist prior to being so-harmed, otherwise there will be nothing that has undergone the change. But to be born is to be brought into being, that is, to begin to exist, and thus to be born is not to undergo a change, but to begin to exist. If birth were a change, then you would have had to existed before birth, which is a contradiction since birth is just the beginning of the existence of a living thing. Thus birth cannot be a harm in itself, and so can only be called a 'harm' derivatively, insofar as it leads to harms in the future. So then the best argument for antinatalism is unsound.

There is no logical argument against it, it's much like libertarianism and individualism in that regard.

It's an ideology that doesn't help anyone at all. Anyone who has already been born can't be helped by it and people who haven't been and won't be born (or conceived if you prefer) can't be helped by antinatalism because they don't exist.

You've got to be kidding me. Antinatalism is based entirely upon spooks. Fuck your right to consent

>What are some logical arguments against a belief that isn't based on logic

lel

>if even some lives are worth living, then being brought into being cannot be bad in itself...
>So the antinatalist needs to show that being born is a harm in itself
Strong antinatalists don't argue that most lives aren't worth living, but that all human beings will inevitably come to harm and suffer [citation not needed] and that suffering is worse than not existing because of pic related. It's one of the possible ways to handle non-existent individuals in ethical calculations, taken to its logical conclusion.


If you want, it's a bit like arguing whether it's okay to kidnap people and forcefully bring them on a free vacation to see the Taj Mahal or whatever. The natalist equivalent here would say that it's okay as long as the victim really enjoyed the vacation, the anti-natalist would say that it's wrong to kidnap people and take them somewhere against their will, and it doesn't matter how great the vacation was or that you ended up being thanked for it.

and why is kidnapping bad?

>[citation not needed]

Well ain't that convenient

Really? You don't think every human being will suffer, even it's just stubbing his toe or getting a speck of dust in his eyes? It can be argued that birth itself is rather traumatic as well.

If you don't want to admit that kidnapping is bad, feel free to substitute whatever harmful practice you want for it. Like "sexual assault is okay as long as the victim ends up enjoying it and falling in love with the rapist and they live happily everafter"

How is it a spook?

Also, antinatalism isn't a system of ethics. It's the single claim that having children/being born holds a negative value. Systems of philosophy and ethics can be used to justify this assertion.

>it's a bit like arguing

Yeah but it's not an equivalency. Attack what it is, not what it is like.

>but that all human beings will inevitably come to harm and suffer [citation not needed]
Sure

>that suffering is worse than not existing because of pic related

So Pascal's wager: Kiddy edition.

The problem is that it makes sense with it's own axioms, but most people (I can safely assume) would prefer to have been born/exist than the opposite. You could tell these people you can logically prove their existence is a harm, but I doubt many will care.

You could also say the absence of benefit is a negative and/or the absence of harm is not good but neutral.

>So Pascal's wager: Kiddy edition.
Not every scenario that considers 4 outcomes is like Pascal's wager.

>most people (I can safely assume) would prefer to have been born/exist than the opposite
That's great, but if you accept that it's okay to bring into existence any life worth living, you run into some problems. For example, most disabled people don't regret having been born and still consider that their lives as deaf-mute cripples were worth living, so it's difficult to justify aborting unhealthy children. In fact, it's difficult to argue that reproducing with your sister or genetically engineering children to be born crippled is wrong. Or, it's good to breed until we have 100 billion people struggling to survive on an overpopulated planet as long as their lives aren't so hellish that they'd rather have never been born. And if history is any indication, people will tolerate the most abject misery before they start regretting their existence.
And if you argue that we shouldn't reproduce unless the child will lead the best life possible, well, I expect that not many children ought to be born.

>You could tell these people you can logically prove their existence is a harm, but I doubt many will care.
Why should we care about their opinions, though? This isn't about people who have already been born, it's about causing harm to new people.

>You could also say the absence of benefit is a negative
Pretty sure that's not just a logical but a mathematical fallacy, unless you also argue that the presence of harm is doubleplusbad, but it doesn't really change the calculation.
>and/or the absence of harm is not good but neutral.
But again, if you try to live with integrity and follow that principle, you run into many paradoxes and conclusions that people will find monstrous.

"Most people who are alive prefer living to not living" != "We should give birth to as many people as possible"
>But again, if you try to live with integrity and follow that principle, you run into many paradoxes and conclusions that people will find monstrous.
Such as?

>"Most people who are alive prefer living to not living" != "We should give birth to as many people as possible"
You don't understand. If you use "most people prefer living" as an argument, it's no problem in your view if we bring into the world as many people as we want/can as long as the majority of future people won't quite be suicidally miserable.

>Such as?
If you accept that the absence of benefit is negative, you have a DUTY to bring into existence people who would live happy lives and you have to defend your lack of procreation. "We would need to regret the absence of all possible happy people and we would need to regret this based on the interests of those people."
If you accept that the absence of harm is neutral, you don't have a stronger reason to not have a suffering child than to not have a happy child. Which means several things: you don't have a stronger imperative to avoid the birth of a suffering child vs that of a happy child, which is clearly mistaken (it'd be like saying that avoiding to hurt someone is equivalent to avoiding to give a gift: it's a strange equivalence to make) ; you can't regret bringing into existence a suffering child more than you can regret not bringing into existence a happy child ; while you have no duty to avoid procreating, you have no real reason to procreate either, since you already accepted than not having a child is equivalent no matter the potential outcome (it doesn't matter that you refuse to have a suffering child, and it doesn't matter that you refuse to have a happy child) so why bother?
And if you accept that the absence of benefit is negative AND that the absence of harm is neutral, you can't refuse to bring happy children into the world, and you still can't regret that miserable children will be born either.

Antinatalist literature discusses at length the advantages of axiological asymmetry over symmetry, so I recommend you check it out. Try Benatar's books.

Is that it?

Ethics is a fucking meme outside of the classics.

Why should we care about the opinions of things that don't even exist?

Antinatalism means to tell people how to do good/avoid doing wrong, not how to help the unborn.
If you claim it's meaningless, you're saying that if you have to choose between not giving birth to a child and giving birth to a child + feeding the child raw sewage and radioactive waste, you might as well go ahead and have the stunted radioactive mutant because otherwise he wouldn't exist so you wouldn't be helping anyone by refusing to give birth to him.

What if I gain happiness and have reason to believe the child gains happiness?

Logic can prove you are not happy

Ergo

You are not happy

All value systems are axiomatic. That is, they require you to accept without reason their presuppositions. Therefore antinatalism and natalism are both reducable to "muh feels", just like every other moral system, since its impossible to derive an imperative from a state of affairs.
Thread should have ended here. If anyone preaches antinatalism to you and tries to use a utilitarian argument, just tell them you don't mind suffering. Case closed, some values are higher than avoiding suffering [relative to you anyway], antinatalism is defeated.

Just remember in my system of ethics you're gay as fuck.

Its the truth. Ought =/= IS, and never will. Moral systems are Art, not Science. Created for particular agents, with particular interests. Not universal, not cosmic, not absolute.

>some values higher than avoiding suffering
That's spooky as HELL, m8.

>[relative to you anyway]

Lrn2read

>Just remember in my system of ethics you're gay as fuck.
>Its the truth.

Ha. GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

Antinatalism is an empty gesture by sexless betas to the effect of "you can't fire me, I quit!"

Hey if being relatively homosexual makes me right about moral relativism, then I will gladly suck imaginary penises for the benefit of the field of metaethics.

>sexless betas
or homos and lesbians

Just stop valuing those things nigga.


That reminds me, Benatar gives the example of a bird that needs a nest vs a fish that doesn't need a nest. Arguing for natalism is saying that having a child who leads a fulfilled life is better than not having a child.
It's thus like arguing that it's better for the bird to have a fulfilled need for a nest rather than to have no need for a nest in the first place.
But it wouldn't be a tragedy if humans had no need to breath oxygen in a world without oxygen. And it's good for humans to have a fulfilled need for oxygen, but it's not better than the absence of a never-existing human's need for oxygen. And if we can agree that humans lacking oxygen is bad, clearly it would have been better if humans had no need to breath oxygen, or more generally, if humans had never existed at all.

I bet most animals including humans would prefer to be alive than dead. Not being alive at all might be a 0, but life itself doesn't have an expected value of 0 or -1 like that one picture suggests.

I forgot to address one thing
>le make infinite people for happiness meme

Shows a blatant disregard for basic economics

There isn't one.

Life itself has an "expected value" that is positive or negative depending on whether it is a happy life or atrocious suffering. The ABSENCE of life is neutral or positive. To reuse the analogy of needs above: If you don't have a need but you could have easily fulfilled it if you had it, the lack of a need is roughly neutral. If you don't have a need that you couldn't have fulfilled and would cause you trouble, it's positive. Animals that need to breathe would prefer to breathe properly rather than lack oxygen, yet animals that don't need oxygen don't care about the lack of oxygen. On the other hand, the animals that need oxygen ought to regret having to breathe when they're suffocating.

Animals are good for these hypothetical scenarios, let's keep it up:
If you have a tendency to torture small animals, it's GOOD that you don't breed cats to have more kittens to torture. But if you treat your pets well, that doesn't mean it's BAD that you didn't breed cats to raise more kittens, even if you're reasonably certain the kittens would have been happy in your care. This stays true even if we admit that making existing pets happy is a good thing. The conclusion is that we ought to make existing pets happy and prevent them from suffering, but we don't have any duty to bring more pets into existence just to make them happy, and we need to avoid bringing pets that would suffer into existence, so it follows that not bringing any more pets into existence is the most coherent position.

So it is with children, or people in general. Existing people may prefer to live, but do you prefer to have a crackhouse full of sick addicts, beaten wives and abused children in your neighborhood, or to have a vacant lot on that spot? Do you prefer to see a virgin rainforest or a slum full of miserable starving people? Empty deserts or ones where barbaric nomads bring war captives to be raped and tortured and give birth to more slaves? Perhaps most people aren't suffering like those, perhaps most humans are happy with their lives. But then, do you often think it's a tragedy that some Pacific islands were never settled by humans before? Do you mourn daily the fact that Mars never developed sentient life that could have led happy lives? Do you pity the Earths on which humans haven't walked? Has anyone grieved because the Universe was devoid of life for billions of years and will likely return to that state some time before the end of Time?

Nobody is gonna reply to you if you waffle on so much.

Be more laconic with your arguments, else be ignored.

Feel free.

No.

Nope, I'm just playing with the idea because in reality I use a somewhat different value system and you can't spook me that way

Also, you're still assuming that expected value is negative

Being born is not a benefit over not so it necessarily is given the nature of the universe (no living being will ever have all their desires and preferences fulfilled).

Yes it is.

Most of you who argue against antinatalism seem to assume that the majority of people alive are happy most of the time. Is that the case though? In third world countries living conditions are fucked and seem to get worse and worse. In the first world many are unhappy BECAUSE of the "highly developed" culture and world they are living in for example through the loss of perceived purpose through the loss of religious believe. Animals are happy because most of them are not concious at all and thus can not suffer on a mental basis. I would say we should either somehow go back to living on trees, commit collective suicide or, because most people while not exactly being purely happy, are contempt with their lives we just stop reproducing to prevent people from being born who most likely are going to suffer.

You forgot to factor in the rest of the life and whether the average person would have preferred to have ever existed like that or not at all

Every person who says life was worth living gets some arbitrary value above 0, and every person who says no gets an arbitrary value below 0, and you can't use 1 or -1 because happiness doesn't work like that, but it does have to he something for your weird math.

You have to convince me that most people didn't want to live, not sneak around.

And even then I don't value things as an aggregate over my own feelings.

All of you who argue for antinatalism assume the majority of people suffer more than they were ever happy

Empty rhetoric won't validate you.

Do a survey. Ask if you'd rather have been born or not.

We can take the results of said survey to have good judgement whether those yet-to-be would be so negatively affected by being born.

>living conditions are fucked etc

Yet people strive to survive.

>we should go back to trees

It's not I'm the interests of the majority.

>We should all kill ourselves

Feel free to lead by example, but again, it's not in the interests of the many.

in* not I'm lol

It's simple. If people don't have enough children, the lack of labor will cause our society to collapse. The splendor of human creation will be largely undone.

At least you tried.

Holy shit, are you guys STILL talking about existing people?

The point is that while the existence of suffering is a problem for existing people, the non-existence of happy human beings is not a problem any more than the non-existence of life on Mars or the non-existence of sentient life during the Jurassic. The potential happiness of beings that will not/did not exist is not a negative, it's neutral. Meanwhile, the non-existence of suffering is not just neutral but good. It's good when people who would be absolutely miserable aren't born, even if it would have been only 1 or 2 wretches among 6 billion happy people. It's good that there will be no one suffering at the end of the Universe, and it's not bad that there will be no one to enjoy the spectacle.

Because people have fear of dying and pain, programmed into brain by evolution.
If everyone on planet had a red button that would make then disappear forever instantly without a speck of pain then nobody would be around.
And also only reason why we make babies is not to bring them to this beautiful world but because we are programmed to by evolution to fuck and have desire to breed.
Henceforth there is no free will in this matter and 99% people are slaves to their instinct. Only selected few are able to overcome all their fear and end themselves.

Id actually really be interested in doing such a survey but rather than asking if they would prefer being dead I would want to question if they are truly happy or not. Thing is, I would actually like to be proven wrong but I just have a hard time dealing with the suffering in life if living does not seem to have a purpose. I know that existentialism might be the answer here but I just have a hard time subscribing to it. I would love to hear an argument why life has intrinsic meaning.

One of the greatest desires of the most people - not to die.
One of the greatest desires of the most people - their kids should not die.
Birth inapplicable leads to death. What is the meaning of having children? Why death of children becoming for parents such a shocking? their death in any case is inevitable.

>Yet people strive to survive.
and doomed to failure.

1: Neutral is bad, if you see a barren world and have an opportunity to fill it with life it is good to do so.

2: Aliens exist, so in theory your goal should to be to turn humanity into a war machine bent on exterminating extra terrestrial life.

3: At what point do you decide the bad outweighs the good? If Earth became a utopia except there was a 1 in a trillion chance of getting bone cancer, would it be an evil universe?

4: Pain and pleasure are not the sole way of deciding what is good and evil according to various systems of ethics.

5: In the future it might be possible to genetically modify people not to feel pain.

Life contains the potential for nigh-infinite pleasure, and to deny someone this pleasure is wrong.

Exceptions for individuals with heritable conditions or those in extreme poverty, because their children will lack the proper means to experience pleasure.

>Neutral is bad
>Neutral is bad
>Neutral is bad

1. Why?
2. I personally would say that every concious species and every individual need to make the choice if life is worth living or not themselves. If the aliens have a perceived purpose with which they can justify their suffering why not let them be?
3. The world in which we live isnt that utopia. Everyone will experience and suffering and the bad might outweight the good.
4. Ethics and moral are just ways for us to hold societies together and to deal with the harshnes sof the universe, yet they do not prevent suffering from happening. If ethics and morals give your life a purpose and make it worth living more power to you.
5. Its not only about physical pain though. Emotional pain and discomfort, at least to me personally, play a far bigger role. Also "might"

Or again, it's not a tragedy that flowers bloomed in the fields for 60 million years without anyone being there to enjoy and paint the landscape, it's a tragedy when thousands of people are and will be tortured in some despot's dungeon. It's not a tragedy that cacao has grown for millions of years without anyone eating delicious chocolate, it's a tragedy when billions of people starve and will starve. It's not a tragedy that no one will be singing praises to your family in a thousand years, it's a tragedy when your great-grandson blows himself up in a maternity clinic.

>Neutral is bad, if you see a barren world and have an opportunity to fill it with life it is good to do so.
Why? We don't even dare to contaminate isolated environments with bacteria out of fear of losing their pristine quality, and you claim we should completely change an environment just because "emptiness is bad"? What's your reasoning?
Neutral is neutral, not bad, by definition.

>Aliens exist, so in theory your goal should to be to turn humanity into a war machine bent on exterminating extra terrestrial life.
Aliens, like any sentient life, are responsible for their own destiny. I don't advocated exterminating them any more than I advocate democide.
I would try to convince them to stop procreating, however.

>In the future it might be possible to genetically modify people not to feel pain.
>If Earth became a utopia except there was a 1 in a trillion chance of getting bone cancer, would it be an evil universe?
In that case, I would still advocate against the birth of people not genetically modified to feel pain or protected against bone cancer.
However, I'm not in favor of continuing to breed until we manage to turn the Earth into an utopia, because we can stop suffering for good by ending procreation.

>Pain and pleasure are not the sole way of deciding what is good and evil according to various systems of ethic
Harm and benefit fit into the vast majority of systems.

>Life contains the potential for nigh-infinite pleasure, and to deny someone this pleasure is wrong.

if it's not good it's bad, prove me wrong

>Argue against something which makes no sense
Prove yourself right senpai

You won't be denying anyone anything, since they won't exist.
Life also contains the potential for night-infinite suffering, however, and you're inflicting this harm on people when you bring them into the world.

> prove me wrong
What is good? If it's not bad it's good? Bad is bad, good is good? If you define a bad as not good. You are right. But it's circulus vitiosus.

I can not prove or disprove the thesis without external facts. This is the basic logic.

1: Because it would be better if there were happy children playing in a playground, rainforests or whatever instead of just barren rock.

2: Why can't humans develop such a purpose?

3: At what point do you decide the bad outweighs the good though? How do you decide?

4: Ethics convinces people not to inflict suffering on others. Importantly to the debate, if pain and pleasure are not what solely determines good and evil then it is possible for existence to be ultimately good even if there is suffering. Pain and pleasure are kind of petty compared to the fact that sapient life exists at all.

5: Everything is a might. This point is more like point 3 then, you factor risk into your calculations of "goodness" and "badness".

I thought of another point.

6: Every day billions of animals die horribly. Don't we have a duty to replace all life capable of suffering on earth with GM nonsuffering species so that nothing suffers? The ethical calculation looks like this

suicide: suffering continues

plan succeeds: utopia

plan fails: suffering continues

It all boils down to axioms and logic games. Ain't no body got time for that.

Moral error theory destroys the case for antinatalism. If there are no objective moral truths and values, antinatalists claims that bringing life into the world is "bad" or "wrong" are simply untrue.

In this case, the birth of the most childrens in modern conditions is sacrifice for the great goal(utopia). Since we can't guarantee happiness for each of them. It is like playing in Russian roulette, but price - life of the another person, not yours live. In this sense, the birth still doesn't look like something good in itself.

Existence as a goal for itself has absolutely no value especially if it lacks intrinsic meaning and therefore should not be advocated by anyone.

Since meaning of existence is subjective there is 100% chance you'll have tons of suffering cause of conflicting subjective meanings.

Example:
A pedo just wants to fuck kiddies and a kid simply wants not to be fucked.
Either a pedo lives unfulfillled life by constraining himself or a kid gets traumatized by a cock => suffering

not sure if I agree, but still lol'd

Logic of antinatalism is based on thesis - to cause suffering to human is bad, this thesis is taken as true.
> no objective moral truths and values
We don't need objective moral truths and values, when the subjective moral truths and values of the subjects are similar.

Death devalues and suffering and happiness. The value of life is zero.

Benatar defends corporal punishment on children and circumsision however. Not attacking you mind, I just find it curious.

The problem is that the antinatalist is simply assuming a form of quasi-utilitarianism by accepting such thesis. And utilitarianism has plenty of criticism on its own.

All ideologies (including Stirner's) are thought up because there is some deprivation or dilemma on which the ideology claims to remedy which in itself is an admittance that existence is pretty bad. As an antinatalist I ask why people continue to create needs that people and ideas try desperately to solve.

To put it shortly, there is no need for need.

Except Stirner did solve it.

The worst thing about birth - birth by itself perceived as a gift for the person who will be born. Why? Here is no guarantee that person who will be born will have a happy life. Birth mb good if the one who born will live a happy life. But where is the guarantee? And more, if you are find yourself unhappy by life. all will blame you in yours unhappiness. lol. As if I myself decided to be born into this world.

misanthropy is based on emotions, anger, frustration, hate and hubris are emotions

What the fuck is that thing? A bubble baby?

so you want no one to be born because of the 1% of people like you that wish they were never born when most people are glad to be alive even if they have had quite a bit of suffering in their life. you are simply projecting yourself onto everyone. your "right" to consent is just as spooky as every other human right

Why create the problem in the first place?

Why not? Maybe I just feel like it.

To be honest antinatalists are just depressives. I don't mean that as an insult, I'm a depressive. It runs in my family. Pills only help to a certain extent.

I don't know if I can explain this properly, but to a depressive, most people are actually crazy. They act exactly as if they can achieve happiness, and are always surprised when they can't. They live in the moment when they think they'll finally figure it out just around the corner.

>>Most people are glad to be alive
If we accept this as the truth.
>1% of people
It sounds like a trolley problem. If the price of happiness of 7 billion people, is a suffering of 70 million people, taking into account alternative of complete absence of both: suffering and happiness, whether to pay such price? If happiness of one person is so great, so big, that outweighs the suffering of 99, is good or bad to condemn 99 to suffer. If suffering of one person is so terrible, that outweighs the happiness of 99?
The utilitarian approach to morality is very problematic. From a utilitarian point of view, we would have to maintain medical experiments on humans, it seems to me.

This is what my friend called the "Approaching ~0" Argument when I pitched it to him. He liked it, but some others in our group weren't convinced.

Essentially, there is strong reason to believe that life right now is simply not worth it. However, there is also strong reason to believe that conditions can improve, albeit slowly and temporarily. Finally, there is strong reason to believe that such improvements can be built upon, to create substantial improvements to the human condition over time.

Thus, while OUR lives may suck, and it may be immoral for us to being children into the world, it's conceivable that eventually, this will not be the state of affairs. There will be a point where life is worth it and reproduction becomes a non-immorality. If we accept a Platonic definition of badness (ei, not real, just a condition of lacking some amount of good), then the moment this is reached, it was all worth it.

Since we can't know whether or not this point will ever be reached, the only possible way to do some good (that is, improve the conditions) is to reproduce, even if it might be in vain. Either you reproduce and the odds of improvement become non-zero, or you don't reproduce and they remain at zero.

Now, antinatalism is the illogical, feelings argument!

The goal of an organism is to survive and reproduce, the goal of antinatalism is the opposite.

So logic would follow that any fit organism would have no use for antinatalism since it is antithetical to that organism's existence.

>Essentially, there is strong reason to believe that life right now is simply not worth it
What? How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can you apply that conclusion to the entire human race?

>there is strong reason to believe that such improvements can be built upon, to create substantial improvements to the human condition over time.
>Improvements to the human condition
Define the "human condition" and how exactly it can be "improved"

Whats wrong with feelings again? You have to live with your feelings, you know.

Tell them to kill themselves.

No, really. Anti-Natalism, at its core, is against reproducing because the world sucks, and if non-existence is preferable to existence, all antinatalists should've killed themselves by now.

Does this mean that man who is against torture, should be satisfied by the fact that he doesn't torment anyone, and not try to prevent torture if he has the opportunity?
Also. Antinatalists don't call for mass suicide. Only stop create new people.

(I) Each person has an interest in acquiring a new satisfied preference.
(II) Whenever a person is deprived of a new satisfied preference this violates an interest and is thus a harm with a finite disvalue.
(III) If a person is deprived of an infinite number of new satisfied preferences, then she suffers an infinite number of harms.
(IV) Death deprives us of an infinite number of new satisfied preferences.
(V) Taking into account that death is infinitely great harm and everyone will die, we should not create new people

>(IV) Death deprives us of an infinite number of new satisfied preferences.
Death relieves us of any want, thus it does us no harm when it deprives us of anything else.

>What? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I'm not that guy. But this is one of those cases where depressed people can reason all they like, they'll just hit a brick wall in terms of the optimism bias of normal people.

Let me put it this way: what is happiness? Happiness is the removal of any suffering. Can happiness last? No, because the sources of suffering are recurring. Almost every moment you are suffering from something. You're hungry, you're tired, you need to force yourself to do something.

The optimism bias of normal people is that you just forget those moments.

For example, maybe you were "angsty" as a teenager. The interesting thing about angsty teenagers is that they really, truly, honestly are suffering a horrible crisis. But you just look back and say "what an idiot I was".

Why do atheists have a less children or didn't have any children. at all? They are cruel and don't want to unborn sufferers have experienced the happiness of existence?
is atheism confirmed as bad?

I think maybe you just have a depressed faggot bias